OT- obama speaks

[r_mutt]

and the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up 236.16 points!

just saying...


:p

[Tobias]

Wasn't it Uncle Ben that eased minds on Wall Street today? We'll have to see what happens tomorrow to detect an Obama connection. Hopefully he'll do well since we can all use a little good news. ;)

[johnnymossville]

and the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up 236.16 points!

just saying...


:p

He learned it's best to speak AFTER the market closes. Baby Steps!

[93legendti]

"OK, we're done . . .

I can see no other purpose to this thread other than to get the usual reactions from the usual folks. You all have each others ID's . . . continue this useless, endless partisan argument offline. Thank you.

BBD"

[rustychisel]

"OK, we're done . . .

###

BBD"

Yeah, I give you less than eight hours and counting down. Wouldn't it be cool if just one man could influence all those events with - like - a universal remote control? No wait, they made that movie, right?

[93legendti]

Yeah, I give you less than eight hours and counting down. Wouldn't it be cool if just one man could influence all those events with - like - a universal remote control? No wait, they made that movie, right?
Wizard of Oz?

[TomP]

I'm just an average guy. I'm well educated, work hard, try to be honest, and try to do the good and right things in life. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought his speech was great and his plan fantastic. I love our president and our country.

[Louis]

I used to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict as two scorpions in a bottle.

Sometimes they are quiet, not fighting, but the tiniest little tap on the glass and they begin to strike. Neither can destroy the other and no one will win. At least not any time soon. Eventually they calm down a bit, but before long there's another tap on the glass and they are back at it again.

Perhaps both the US and this forum are becoming more and more like them.

Louis

PS - I miss W, now that we don't have him to kick around anymore. Such an easy target. OK, OK, that was a joke, not an actual tap on the glass. ;)

[SamIAm]

I'm just an average guy. I'm well educated, work hard, try to be honest, and try to do the good and right things in life. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought his speech was great and his plan fantastic. I love our president and our country.

Man, I wish I had read this before I ate.

Prediction:

BBD does not lock this thread as long as it stays pro-bama.

[Louis]

BBD does not lock this thread as long as it stays pro-bama.

Nice! Now he can't win regardless of what he does.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Now I know what Pete feels like. It's like trying to keep order in a kindergarten class. Go ahead, you guys, tear each other apart. Insult Obama. Insult Bush. Insult everyone and everything. Have a ball. You just love having at each other too much. I'm going to NAHBS and I may not look at the forum all frickin' week.

BBD

[Samster]

and the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up 236.16 points!
just saying... :p
dead parrot bounce. just sayin'.

[Elefantino]

Lock this thread before it gets out of hand.

C'mon, people.

[Ti Designs]

Go ahead, you guys, tear each other apart. Insult Obama. Insult Bush. Insult everyone and everything. Have a ball.

Well, you heard the bee...

[Louis]

dead parrot bounce. just sayin'.

Hey Sam, you and the Rushbo - just hoping that the economy keeps crashing? That's not a very good thing to hope for.

[ti_boi]

partttttttty

[Samster]

Hey Sam, you and the Rushbo - just hoping that the economy keeps crashing? That's not a very good thing to hope for.
who said anything about hope? not a RL fan. bottom line is the market is low and had a lot of room to move up. dead parrot bounce. it will keep doing this as long as there's weak money on big positions with thin market volume. things will move consistently once the weak money is out. when will that be though is anyone's guess, but i'm betting we're close... let us pray.

[ti_boi]

So I liked the speech.....duh....what else would I say....


Oh, and the Bankers....they are still evil.....


And uh...well....financially we had the best year ever....and we have had a lot of great years....so like...I am not....some poor schmuck looking for a handout......... :rolleyes:

[Samster]

and, like, HEY! i resent being used in the same sentence as rush.

[Louis]

FYI, for all those who don't know, Sam and I are buddies, so this isn't serious talk, just kidding.

Louis

[Chad Engle]

W was/is an idiot, I voted for him and I have no one to blame but myself.

Obama gives folks a sense of hope, that bothers those who like W or McCain. Give Obama some time and he'll certainly give you something you can actually complain about, they all do, R or D. But for now he's the man, your either with us or against us.

Man do I feel better. Thanks BBD and have fun at NAHBS, I'm looking forward to some pics!

[Viper]

For almost the first time in my political life I have no dog in the fight. Long story short I am rooting for President Obama. I may not like or agree with everything about the leader of the island of District Colombia, but now is not the time to be running around the beach holding a stick with the edges sharpened on both ends. He's the leader the next four years and we'll know how things are shaping up during the Midterm Elections or should I say, he'll know. I can't stand Rick Pitino, but I still followed the Celtics.

atmo: http://books.google.com/books?id=z--HMbPXdD0C&dq=lord+of+the+flies&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=DtjkJr0BuE&sig=QDYoNWngS1xgulD2XuhUL5lOVpw&hl=en&ei=zcSkSbb4MI-ctwf00KTZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

[Samster]

actually, as a former republican let me be the first to disabuse anyone of the notion that anyone (and i mean anyone) could have done anything meaningfully better. it's possible, i suppose, but not terribly likely...

[Samster]

For almost the first time in my political life I have no dog in the fight. Long story short I am rooting for President Obama. I may not like agree or like everything about the leader of the island of District Colombia, but now is not the time to be running around the beach holding a stick with the edges sharpened on both ends. He's the leader the next four years and we'll know how things are shaping up during the Midterm Elections or should I say, he'll know. I can't stand Rick Pitino, but I still followed the Celtics.

atmo: http://books.google.com/books?id=z--HMbPXdD0C&dq=lord+of+the+flies&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=DtjkJr0BuE&sig=QDYoNWngS1xgulD2XuhUL5lOVpw&hl=en&ei=zcSkSbb4MI-ctwf00KTZBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
a (still republican) friend of mine said it best... we all need the guy to succeed. period.

[beungood]

Keep Drinking The Koolaid All The Way To The Re-education Camps.

[Samster]

i'm bucking for the last post in this thread before lockdown!

[ti_boi]

a (still republican) friend of mine said it best... we all need the guy to succeed. period.


Now THAT is the truth. :cool:

Why aren't there more chicks on this website though?

[Viper]

a (still republican) friend of mine said it best... we all need the guy to succeed. period.

Dude, Sam, it was me. Remember when we were drinking pints at Garvey's Ale House a few weeks ago? In between my Crockett and Tubbs stories, we talked about Obama. Dude.

[Samster]

Dude, Sam, it was me. Remember when we were drinking pints at Garvey's Ale House a few weeks ago? In between my Crockett and Tubbs stories, we talked about Obama. Dude.i remember... you're right. it was you, baby.

[Samster]

Now THAT is the truth. :cool:

Why aren't there more chicks on this website though?
because the Viper is in the pit.

_______
NOTE: for those who might wonder, no offense was intended to Viper, rush, or anyone else.

[Kevan]

Nobody messes with Joe.

[ti_boi]

because the Viper is in the pit.


reminds me of a song.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lYdD9DdLNY

[Samster]

reminds me of a song.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lYdD9DdLNY
hey that's good. hard to watch, but good. dolly is cute. last year, my family and i took a trip to orlando (to meet joel), and passed through pigeon forge, tennessee. home of DOLLYWOOD.

i question the choice of name.

[ti_boi]

hey that's good. hard to watch, but good. dolly is cute. last year, my family and i took a trip to orlando (to meet joel), and passed through pigeon forge, tennessee. home of DOLLYWOOD.

i question the choice of name.


They were going to call it Camel Toe....but you know. This is my kinda gal.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia9iQkCvajM&feature=related

[Samster]

They were going to call it Camel Toe....but you know. This is my kinda gal.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia9iQkCvajM&feature=related
you win.

[cadence90]

I thought Obama's speech was excellent, extremely well delivered, with great range and comprising clear thoughts and stances. I thought it was better than his Inaugural Address, and I hope his message will be heard and realized. He has now taken control of the Office, no doubt. I would hope that all would wish him well, especially in these times.


Sadly, I don't think all will hope for collective success...:
Meanwhile...Bobby Jindal's rebuttal was an unmitigated disaster, shallow, self-serving (in a dumb way), vapid and completely empty. I am not of Jindal's party, but woe unto us all if that is the best the opposition can muster.
.

[Bruce K]

Just 'cause Dave and Pete are at NAHBS, it doesn't mean this place is a free for all until Monday..... :cool:

Just sayin' ;)

So far, you cats are behaving. Let's keep it that way. :banana:

BK

[97CSI]

I'm just an average guy. I'm well educated, work hard, try to be honest, and try to do the good and right things in life. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought his speech was great and his plan fantastic. I love our president and our country.Being a child from Lake Woebegone, I'm above average, well educated (at least my colleges told me I am), try to be honest and do the right things in life. I do love my country (served 8-years on active duty just to prove it) and didn't listen to the speech. But, I do like his message of reality and limits. Even on the rich. Here's hoping for the best.

[michael white]

I thought Obama's speech was excellent, extremely well delivered, with great range and comprising clear thoughts and stances. I thought it was better than his Inaugural Address, and I hope his message will be heard and realized. He has now taken control of the Office, no doubt. I would hope that all would wish him well, especially in these times.


Sadly, I don't think all will hope for collective success...:
Meanwhile...Bobby Jindal's rebuttal was an unmitigated disaster, shallow, self-serving (in a dumb way), vapid and completely empty. I am not of Jindal's party, but woe unto us all if that is the best the opposition can muster.
.


I agree on all points. It was a pretty masterful speech, and he will have to be a masterful speaker to negotiate the partisan divide which will stretch forever before him.

Jindal truly shocked me, because I've been reading for months how intelligent and what an up and comer he is. I had to turn away, not in the way that I would turn from someone I didn't agree with, but simply because he wasn't bearable to watch. It was an appalling appearance.

[93legendti]

I am shocked by the racist comments about Gov. Jindal. Wait, after the treatment of Gov. Palin, I am not shocked.

[Ray]

Jindal truly shocked me, because I've been reading for months how intelligent and what an up and comer he is. I had to turn away, not in the way that I would turn from someone I didn't agree with, but simply because he wasn't bearable to watch. It was an appalling appearance.
In fairness, I saw him on Meet the Press on Sunday morning and thought he was pretty formidable. Very intelligent and articulate and quick on his feet. Last night he was really terrible, so it may be that he's just got a lot of work to do to speak effectively in that format. He's got about three years to get better at it. But he might have really hurt himself last night - even the guys on Fox were trashing him, which is no way to start building support from the Republican establishment.

-Ray

[paczki]

I am shocked by the racist comments about Gov. Jindal. Wait, after the treatment of Gov. Palin, I am not shocked.

C'mon, jeez... :fight:

[csm]

I thought the delivery of the speech was good. How can you not be for the things he talked about in the speech? that is until you start to wonder how he'll pay for it? seems a bit disengenuous to talk about halving the deficit he inherited (and one, as a senator, that he helped create) yet push through what is starting to sound like the largest spending program in recent memory. obviously he ain't gonna get everything and here's to hoping he doesn't.
seemed to be a lot of misplaced blame and rhetoric but was paced well and had some memorable deliveries.
I'd grade him a B.
was it just me or did Ms Pelosi seem like she was taking mental notes on who was paying attention and who was hurling shoes at the president?

[93legendti]

I thought the delivery of the speech was good. How can you not be for the things he talked about in the speech? that is until you start to wonder how he'll pay for it? seems a bit disengenuous to talk about halving the deficit he inherited (and one, as a senator, that he helped create) yet push through what is starting to sound like the largest spending program in recent memory. obviously he ain't gonna get everything and here's to hoping he doesn't.
seemed to be a lot of misplaced blame and rhetoric but was paced well and had some memorable deliveries.
I'd grade him a B.
was it just me or did Ms Pelosi seem like she was taking mental notes on who was paying attention and who was hurling shoes at the president?

Start counting the days until the "raise taxes on the rich" teleprompter reading...

[Volant]

For some reason, Obama's delivery just goes right through me and I just can't listen to the guy. So, I didn't watch/listen to it. I have listened to some of the reviews of it and what was said and it sounds like he had a good message although perhaps not totally truthful or accurate (bending of facts; overzealous timelines).

[97CSI]

In fairness, I saw him on Meet the Press on Sunday morning and thought he was pretty formidable. Very intelligent and articulate and quick on his feet. Last night he was really terrible, so it may be that he's just got a lot of work to do to speak effectively in that format. He's got about three years to get better at it. But he might have really hurt himself last night - even the guys on Fox were trashing him, which is no way to start building support from the Republican establishment.

-RayInteresting..........saw the interview and thought he was pathetic and pandered to the basest of his base. Think he views himself as the next 'Arnold', but without the humanity or the humility.

Start counting the days until the "raise taxes on the rich" teleprompter reading...And about time. Be nice if we got them to pay their share after almost 30 years of skating by (since raygun was prez).

[SamIAm]

Interesting..........saw the interview and thought he was pathetic and pandered to the basest of his base. Think he views himself as the next 'Arnold', but without the humanity or the humility.

And about time. Be nice if we got them to pay their share after almost 30 years of skating by (since raygun was prez).


Define fair share, please. I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income, is that not enough. How much do you need from me?

[Samster]

Think he views himself as the next 'Arnold', but without the humanity or the humility.
he's ex-mckinsey. that's just par for the course...

[csm]

we're running out of rich people.

[giordana93]

I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income
I knew there was a reason I often felt out of place around here.

[texbike]

Define fair share, please. I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income, is that not enough. How much do you need from me?

I could really use a personal mentor. What are you doing later??? :)

Texbike

[Volant]

we're running out of rich people.
+1

[Viper]

Jindal. Nice guy, but dudes with 14" necks on 5'6" frames, 28" waists, while they might excel in cycling, they can't make it to The White House. I'm not saying that great ideas are impacted by height or weight, but when Bobby Jindal speaks, people don't listen. He's no E.F. Hutton. Outside The White House just a few days ago, after the Governor's meeting, he spoke while along with the many other Governors. Jindal was a smurf. He needs less smurfness and more hair, some Breck products atmo. Hey, I'm not saying short people got no reason to live, but Randy Newman, well atmo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

:beer:

[97CSI]

Define fair share, please. I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income, is that not enough. How much do you need from me?Not only are you usual in paying 50%, you are generous to your forumites. I would say you are paying a 'reasonable' share of what this society/country has provided you the opportunity to gain. If you had made $6MM, you should pay a higher %. Scale should slide up to at least 90%.

[sjbraun]

"I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income, is that not enough. How much do you need from me?"

Dude, you need a better tax lawyer.

How come so much? I don't live in your world, but I thought the max tax rate was far less than 50%.

[Tobias]

Can we say superficial here?

Michael Douglas also gave a great speech in the American President, but it was make belief; not real. Obama’s speech was great as a speech (we all know he’s great at talking in front of cameras) but there was nothing new at all; no additional clarity on anything. Well, except maybe for doing a 180 on all the Apocalypse rhetoric and returning to a message of hope -- per Bill Clinton’s recommendation.

Returning to the original post’s question: The bounce yesterday was due to Ben Bernanke’s additional clarity on the conditions of the banks, how they will be stress tested, and that they are working on a “uniform” way to proceed.

Obama remained anti-business which shows in today’s market opening. His speech did nothing to settle Wall Street and investors. Personally, I was very disturbed at the wedge he keeps driving between us. Those of you who agree with him 150% don’t see it, but those on the fence or opposed to his anti-business, anti-Wall-Street, anti-free markets, anti-rich, anti-everything except for a welfare state are not going to be moved by a speech that could have been delivered just as eloquently by Michael Douglas.

No substance, no meaning, no progress. With every empty speech he confirms to many like me that he’s an idealist with little substance. And little practical management skills. And with every attack on what some hold dear all he is doing is driving a bigger wedge between us all. Sorry but that’s the truth ATMO.

Words alone don’t mean much to many Americans. Many of us still feel that actions speak louder than words. ;)

[Samster]

we're running out of rich people.
actually, no. wealth build-up/concentration in top brackets (straight percentage) is increasing. by at least one measure, top 1% owns about 40% of "wealth" (in quotes because the definition varies).

>>>>PASTED TABLE>>>>>>
Here is a summary of the statistics for the distribution of wealth in the US as of 1998, the most recent information available that has been fully analyzed:

% of US Population________% of Wealth Owned
=====================================
Top 1%____________________38.1%
Top 96-99%________________21.3%
Top 90-95%________________11.5%
Top 80-89%________________12.5%
Top 60-79%________________11.9%
General 40-59%_____________4.5%
Bottom 40%________________0.2%
>>>>>>END PASTE>>>>>>

if you believe total u.s. net worth is about $55 trillion, 1% owns about $22 trillion of that. if u.s population is 303 million, then 3.03 million each get about $7.2 million. the better way to do it is by households, in which case just multiply the $7.2 by a number between 2.5 and 3 (you choose).

moreover, add up the top four numbers in the pasted table and you get the top 20% of individual have about 80% of the wealth. beautiful expression of the 80/20 thing. indeed, we have more wealthy people than ever... we also have more poor people than ever. in fact, we have more people than ever...

just sayin.

[SamIAm]

The thing that gets missed about taxing the "rich" is the "rich" pay a higher effective tax because of all the programs and deductions that get phased out above a certain income level. You can't keep heaping the responsibility on the rich and offering none of the benefits it pays for. The "rich" get to pay for the party, we just can't come to it.

The way things are going, I would not be surprised to see the government decide that some people don't "need" their social security when it come time to retire.

It would also not surprise me to see the way capital gains/losses are handled change based on income levels. Specifically, I could see the "rich" not getting to fully utilize capital losses against gains going forward.

At some point, it just has to stop. I have reservations about what Obama plans for this country, but as long as he pays for it by cutting spending and not raising taxes I can keep an open mind. Most of what I heard last night were promises to be delivered on 10 years out, well after he will be out of office. Not hard to make promises like that.

[Tobias]

Jindal. Nice guy, but dudes with 14" necks on 5'6" frames, 28" waists, while they might excel in cycling, they can't make it to The White House.And neither could blacks. :rolleyes:

OTOH, maybe we are more anti-size than anti-race. :beer:

[Blue Jays]

"...Scale should slide up to at least 90%..."Why? I have personally met SamIAm at the Finger Lakes Ramble and he is generous over, and over, and over on his own accord.
What incentive for excellence is there when one can expect even more onerous taxation?

[Samster]

i wonder if there's a correlation between widening income disparity and civil wars.

btw, i'm all for making *****loads of $... and keeping it.

[Samster]

What incentive for excellence is there when one can expect even more onerous taxation?NONE! this is the point. and i will get the last post in this thread.

[SamIAm]

"I personally paid $1.5M in taxes last year on $3M in income, is that not enough. How much do you need from me?"

Dude, you need a better tax lawyer.

How come so much? I don't live in your world, but I thought the max tax rate was far less than 50%.

I do nothing extraordinary to minimize taxes. My accountants recommend all kinds of restructuring to avoid taxes, but I prefer simplicity in my life. I am m ok (not happy) to pay up to 50% of what I earn. Should it rise and it looks like it will, I will take advantage of all legal avenues to reduce my share.

Anybody who knows me, knows that I share generously in my community. Always have, always will. I have no luxury that I afford myself outside of handmade bicycles.

Having said that, I am drawing a line in the sand. I will not suffer a tax increase lightly, the government will get less out of me by raising my tax bracket.

[giordana93]

Obama remained anti-business which shows in today’s market opening.

this is just such a non sequitur

duh, I'm not a professional investor, obviously, but I would have been willing to bet good money the market was going to be down today. let's see, sharp rise yesterday? profit-taking today (that means you have to sell to lock in yesterday's gain. that means that prices fall) even a friggin French teacher knows that (which isn't to say that someone won't try to write a complex algorithm to predict or profit from the obvious).

[93legendti]

http://finance.yahoo.com/

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=56298

[SamIAm]

this is just such a non sequitur

duh, I'm not a professional investor, obviously, but I would have been willing to bet good money the market was going to be down today. let's see, sharp rise yesterday? profit-taking today (that means you have to sell to lock in yesterday's gain. that means that prices fall) even a friggin French teacher knows that (which isn't to say that someone won't try to write a complex algorithm to predict or profit from the obvious).

I'm not sure its quite that simple because as you point out, it would be pretty easy to build a trading strategy around that trend. It also assumes that the market is mostly day-traded at this point, because otherwise there would be no profit taking at these levels. I think its probably a combination of 3 things, lack of details or new information in the speech, bad housing numbers and some day-traders taking profit.

[Tobias]

this is just such a non sequiturOK, I think? :rolleyes:

So why did you not say it about the original post which claimed the opposite? The fact remains that Obama is considered anti-business by many business people (whether they are right or not is secondary), and his speech did little if anything to reassure them that he is going to back off his attack on them.

And no, we can't assume that there is always a sell off after each good day. If we had good news that made sense we could see many consecutive good days in a row.

We need clarity and direction that those with money on the sidelines feel comfortable with. Thus far we don't have either.

[L84dinr]

www.Fairtax.org


Trying to tax the rich just because is BS. More par to them that have the means, enjoy.

Envy is ugly.

[Volant]

I don't know about 'fairtax', but I'm in agreement with a flat tax for all. Everyone pays the same percentage with no loop-holes. That's it, simple and easy to understand for all. One of the problems with this kind of tax, as I understand it, lower incomes would find the tax rate to be too onerous.

[Tobias]

One of the problems with this kind of tax, as I understand it, lower incomes would find the tax rate to be too onerous.How about a simple flat tax above a certain level of income?

Say something like 20% above $40,000. Protects the poor and doesn’t discourage the rich and well educated from continuing to work harder and strive for greater success.

[michael white]

the idea that a speech would have any profound effect on the market? come on.

what the president is up to is risky, big, and maybe the only way out, and if he's successful, which will take years of hard-fought finagling, then we'll see the rise.

Till then, if you're feeling hopeful, it's nothing ventured, nothing gained, because what we've got right now is broken. If you're not feeling hopeful, well, you can point to any sign you want, but there's no reason to look at the market right now. It's crap, and it will be crap for quite some time, and that's that.

[NRRider]

Flat tax will never work. Reagan and Congress came as close as anyone in recent history in 1986 and we couldn't keep our hands off of it for even 2 years. Everyone wants to have this or that be deducted from income (think mortgage payments, state taxes, etc). It would cause too much turmoil and, even if they did try it, it wouldn't last more than 2 years.

Sam's effective 50% tax rate must include taxes other than federal taxes but his point is still fair. Overall tax burden of 50%, federal and state, seems like a lot to me.

The notion that the rate should increase to 90% (it actually was close to that at one point in our history-I think unearned income was taxed a while back at 70% federal) sounds like nothing more than what another poster referred to as envy. Wait until that person has the income and see if he's still touting a 90% rate.

I hope Obama's plan succeeds, but I'm opposed to the government trying to spend its way out of the problem. In fact I think it's government's involvement that is a big part of the problem. If they would have said at the outset that the market needs to deal with this on its own, people wouldn't be standing around in virtual paralysis waiting to see what huge spending program the government will implement next. Paralysis arising from uncertainty about future government intervention is a big part of the problem here.

Seems like we're a capitalist country until something goes wrong, and then we view it as the government's responsibility to do something. Of course the current mess is largely the government's fault. Insuring loans that banks had no business making in the first place--under the theory that everyone should own a home whether they could really afford it or not-- played a huge role in this massive problem, and that was the government's doing.

I have two teenage kids and it saddens me that they will have to be paying the price for this spending package for years to come.

[97CSI]

NONE! this is the point. and i will get the last post in this thread.Pretty sad view. Some of us have what is known as personal pride and believe in the old axiom, "anything worth doing is worth doing well." Guess that is no longer operative in today's world of 'trickle-down and supply-side' economics, which have brought us to where we are today.

I have two teenage kids and it saddens me that they will have to be paying the price for this spending package for years to come.Your kids (and mine and our grandkids) would have been paying off ronnie raygun's huge deficits in any event. Always get a kick out of the rightwingers who pump "supply-side" and "trickle-down". Both have been followed since raygun and have proven to give us exactly what we've got today. Huge deficits and the horror-story of the economy. Did paying the guys running Citi and BofA and GM $100MM of salary, bonus and perks do any good? No. Simply greed. Believe the preamble to our Constitution has something in it about the "common weal". Need to adher to that.

[Samster]

Pretty sad view. actually, i'm quite happy, thanks.

[93legendti]

As bad as our new President is on the economy, the news re: foreign poicy is even worse:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-krauthammer_0223edi.State.Edition1.2960c1e.html

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, predicted last October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.

Consider the long list of brazen Russian provocations:

•Pressuring Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. air base in Manas, an absolutely crucial NATO conduit into Afghanistan.

•Announcing the formation of a "rapid reaction force" with six former Soviet republics, a regional Russian-led strike force meant to reassert Russian hegemony in the Muslim belt north of Afghanistan.

•Planning to establish a Black Sea naval base in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia, conquered by Moscow last summer.

•Declaring its intention to deploy offensive Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if Poland and the Czech Republic go ahead with plans to station an American (anti-Iranian) missile defense system.

President George W. Bush's response to the Kaliningrad deployment – the threat was issued the day after Obama's election – was firm. He refused to back down, because giving in to Russian threats would leave Poles and Czechs exposed and show the world that, contrary to post-Cold War assumptions, the U.S. could not be trusted to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying.

The Obama response? "Biden Signals U.S. Is Open to Russia Missile Deal," as The New York Times headlined Biden's Feb. 7 Munich speech to a major international gathering. This followed strong messages from the Obama transition team even before the inauguration that Obama was not committed to the missile shield.

The Kremlin must have been equally impressed that the other provocations – Abkhazia, Kyrgyzstan, the rapid reaction force – elicited barely a peep from Washington.

Iran has been similarly charmed by Obama's overtures. A week after the new president went about sending sweet peace signals via Al Arabiya, Iran launched its first homemade Earth satellite. The message is clear. If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile, North America included.

Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you.

Even reputed allies joined the fun. Pakistan freed from house arrest A.Q. Khan, the notorious proliferator who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Ten days later, Islamabad capitulated to the Taliban, turning over to its tender mercies the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the capital.

These Pakistani capitulations may account for Obama's hastily announced 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan even before his various heralded reviews of the mission have been completed.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e. domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chávez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part ... a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.

[ti_boi]

meshugenah these taxes.....

[97CSI]

As bad as our new President is on the economy, the news re: foreign poicy is even worse:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-krauthammer_0223edi.State.Edition1.2960c1e.htmlThi s is funny. The fact that anyone, other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox (make-it-up excuse for the)News would actually quote Krauthammer. :help:

[fiamme red]

I propose a new sub-folder on this forum:

93legendti's miscellaneous political junk

If you want to waste bandwidth with copying and pasting entire articles, at least stay on-topic. This thread had nothing to do with foreign policy. :no:

[Samster]

meshuggah these taxes.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUnB2dUaJfM

[NRRider]

Your kids (and mine and our grandkids) would have been paying off ronnie raygun's huge deficits in any event. Always get a kick out of the rightwingers who pump "supply-side" and "trickle-down". Both have been followed since raygun and have proven to give us exactly what we've got today. Huge deficits and the horror-story of the economy. Did paying the guys running Citi and BofA and GM $100MM of salary, bonus and perks do any good? No. Simply greed. Believe the preamble to our Constitution has something in it about the "common weal". Need to adher to that.


Obviously I'm not going to change your views, but Reagan's policies have nothing to do with where we are today. And deficits during his term pale in comparison to what we;re talking about here. I guess you're not phased by the additional trillions of dollars these new spending plans are costing the government.

Even Reagan's plan wasn't given enough time to see if it could really work. Rates shot up quickly in the years after he lowered the top rate to 28%. Who knows what effect those rates would have had on the economy long term. (Flame on I guess.)

We are where we are (again in my view) because (i) the financial feeding frenzy precipitated by unsound lending practices and (ii) a very costly war in Iraq.

I'm not a republican (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'm independent and really quite liked Clinton's approach, which by and large was to leave the tax system alone. My only problem with his administration (other than the ridiculous sideshow made into a national embarrassment by the republicans) was the pressure his people put on banks to make those unsound loans.

People complain about the bonuses paid to the CEOs, but that's just a drop in the bucket in term of the losses that have been incurred. Frankly, the large amounts earned by CEOs are due in large part to Congress' failed attempt to limit CEO compensation by limiting tax deductions for compensation to $1 million per year. This was bad social policy and is just another example of harmful government interference. This law forced companies to rely much more heavily on stock option compensation (since deductions arising from option exercises were not limited) and other performance based compensation, and stock options create a clear "roll the dice" mentality for CEOs since there's no real downside to a stock option. Same with performance based comp-no downside penalty for poor performance and tremendous upside potential.

[csm]

I get tired of the response "so and so did it first." ok, we've had presidents in the past who ran up huge deficits. I get it. let's move on. that misguided presidents did it before does not mean we can or should continue to do it. and like it or not, that is exactly what's happening. to blame the rich or the auto industry or anyone other than congress for getting us where we are is misguided at the very least and dangerous most likely.
we're not gonna be able to tax and spend our way out of this. there will need to be programs cut, ceased or scaled way back. we simply can not afford to offer them.
dem or rep or ind....

[giordana93]

So why did you not say it about the original post which claimed the opposite?


you're absolutely 100% right about that. my answer is that 1. I had read the op yesterday and kinda forgot it and 2. it was obviously just a tongue in cheek reply to yesterday's "controversial" thread that I probably shouldn't have responded to anyway (having always skipped those threads, I didn't know who were the active players and their track records to know their positions that are obvious to anyone having read any political threads. whatever. as long as it just remains banter (albeit with serious convictions and stakes), it's cool.

[1centaur]

The rich are already taxed at greater than their fair share, based on share of income. Wealth is not income; apples and oranges. If you don't like wealth, focus on estate taxes, not income taxes.

Look at income tax rates around the world and you will not find many rates over 50% combined (federal/state/city). Hmmm, I wonder why? If we have 39% federal, 5-10% state, and a few % for social security that might later be denied, there's not a lot of room before we're on the wrong side of history and common sense.

90%+ has been used by a Western country and was an abject failure for obvious reasons.

A system not designed to allow talent to get rich will have a hard time growing the tax pie. Does anybody not get that? Why do you think communism has failed, repeatedly?

In the long run, trickle down (a fake, pejorative term) economics are the only economics there are. What do you think government redistribution is? The production of the productive is the only source of societal wealth and the societal safety net. So let's slam the productive, right (I am sure some feel that people will try just as hard at 70% taxation as at 30%; one has to wonder why)? One of the costs of growing the pie is that some people do a lot better than others - so we should celebrate that and thank the rich for paying for most of everything the government does, including the bailout. Without the chance for major income disparity, the pie is stagnant. It's one thing for the guy on the street to have complete ignorance on this topic, but when Washington acts like they don't quite understand (or simply don't care) that makes markets nervous, since a systemic change might be very hard to unwind and we'll be poorer and weaker (in the aggregate) for our lifetimes, potentially.

[giordana93]

This is funny. The fact that anyone, other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox (make-it-up excuse for the)News would actually quote Krauthammer. :help:

never mind the fact that the quotation cited actually begins with "Our wacky veep;" for me that automatically takes it from the realm of ideas to be taken seriously. Even if the vp in question had been Cheney, or Dan Quayle for that matter or any public figure, by starting an "argument" or debate or serious discussion of any sort with that kind of an opening line...it would be like a debate team starting its first point with "you guys all have zits". And this of course happens on both sides of the political divide, precisely on the extremes.

The new industry--you can no longer call it journalism--is worse than the political industry, with only self-serving interests and a need to turn a buck. and people keep on buying (hmmm, I wonder if that has anything relation to the life of the political threads on the forum, that is a bit of a sound bite, he who sceams loudest wins approach to discussion. no offense meant to anyone on that, by the way, just something to reflect upon)

[Ray]

I'm independent and really quite liked Clinton's approach, which by and large was to leave the tax system alone.
But early in his term, didn't he raise the top marginal rates to the rate (39%, I believe) that they're set to go back to at the end of 2010 and that everyone is arguing over now? I believe so. Bush then cut them from 39% to the current rate (35 or 36% I think) but with a sunset provision for 2010 when those cuts will expire. That increase in '93 caused so much ruckus that Clinton lost the Congress in the '94 mid-terms. But I also recall that, despite predictions of coming doom from taxing the rich and boiling all of the incentive out of the economy, that the economy did rather well (for several reasons) through the '90s with those same higher rates in place. We're not talking about going back to the 70-90% rates of the 50's and 60's (I think) which STILL didn't seem to keep the well off from doing very very very well. We're talking about going from 35-36% to 39% by letting Bush's tax cuts expire. Nobody even has to lift a finger or pass a law here.

I'm not trying to claim that Clinton's tax increase is why the economy did well (although it did play a big role in balancing the budget) - but it obviously didn't HURT the economy or prevent a lot of people from becoming fabulously wealthy during the 90s.

Just tying to be clear about the specifics of what we're arguing about here. Lemme know if I have this wrong.

-Ray

[97CSI]

The rich are already taxed at greater than their fair share, based on share of income. Wealth is not income; apples and oranges. If you don't like wealth, focus on estate taxes, not income taxes.Thanks for bringing this up. After some reasonable amount, say $500K, or so, then estate taxes should be 100%. You didn't earn it by right-of-birth. Contrary to many folks belief, we do not have a royalty system in the U.S. So you have to give up the family farm or business someone else built. Well, boo-hoo. Go buy or earn it yourself. As an aside, as a consultant who helped small businesses value and then sell themselves, most of the ones I dealt with that tried to pass the business along to the heirs invariably failed. When the owner makes $3MM and then all his children think they should each make $3MM, doesn't work very well. But don't try to tell the kids that.

[giordana93]

Without the chance for major income disparity, the pie is stagnant.

see, this is what I don't quite get.
centaur makes a reasonable and obviously shared point here; it is perfectly normal that some people should be richer than others (well, maybe I wouldn't say "should be" how about "will be"). what strikes me, having lived in a few different countries, is the disparity between rich and poor, so it's the "major" disparity in this country that I can't fathom and it really is at the root of all the political differences. I just can't wrap my head around someone being worth 40 million (or why anyone would even need to be worth that), while we have people worth essentially nothing living a few miles away (i.e. same metropolitan area). and believe what you want, no one wants to be poor. I dunno, I guess I would prefer a goods and services tax. the tax code is just so bloody complex. anyway, I doubt this will go very far or that I'll stay in this game terribly long, but it's just a thought or two.

[97CSI]

Obviously I'm not going to change your views, but Reagan's policies have nothing to do with where we are today. And deficits during his term pale in comparison to what we;re talking about here. I guess you're not phased by the additional trillions of dollars these new spending plans are costing the government.

Even Reagan's plan wasn't given enough time to see if it could really work. Rates shot up quickly in the years after he lowered the top rate to 28%. Who knows what effect those rates would have had on the economy long term. (Flame on I guess.)

We are where we are (again in my view) because (i) the financial feeding frenzy precipitated by unsound lending practices and (ii) a very costly war in Iraq.

I'm not a republican (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'm independent and really quite liked Clinton's approach, which by and large was to leave the tax system alone. My only problem with his administration (other than the ridiculous sideshow made into a national embarrassment by the republicans) was the pressure his people put on banks to make those unsound loans.

People complain about the bonuses paid to the CEOs, but that's just a drop in the bucket in term of the losses that have been incurred. Frankly, the large amounts earned by CEOs are due in large part to Congress' failed attempt to limit CEO compensation by limiting tax deductions for compensation to $1 million per year. This was bad social policy and is just another example of harmful government interference. This law forced companies to rely much more heavily on stock option compensation (since deductions arising from option exercises were not limited) and other performance based compensation, and stock options create a clear "roll the dice" mentality for CEOs since there's no real downside to a stock option. Same with performance based comp-no downside penalty for poor performance and tremendous upside potential. While we don't agree on many points (we've essentially used the bogus 'supply-side' economics since raygun) I only mention that no president decides on taxes. It is congress (see the "New Element" thread), in all its wisdom, that makes tax policy (law). And you couldn't find a worse bunch of shills on both sides of the aisle (and in between).

[CNY rider]

So you have to give up the family farm or business someone else built. Well, boo-hoo.
.


I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never actually worked the family farm nor seen what hard work and suffering are endured by those families.

If the heirs don't deserve to keep the family farm then who should get it? You, by way of government confiscation?

[NRRider]

But early in his term, didn't he raise the top marginal rates to the rate (39%, I believe) that they're set to go back to at the end of 2010 and that everyone is arguing over now? I believe so.
You're right. My point was I had no big problem with that either. My preference would be for them to set the rate, set the items that can be deducted in arriving at the tax base, and let the economy do its thing for a while so we can at least see how things play out under a given taxing regime. As it stands, they screw around with the system so often you can't tell what really works and what doesn't. The Clinton administration left things alone for the most part, and things seemed to work pretty well (unless you invested heavily in the tech bubble).

[97CSI]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never actually worked the family farm nor seen what hard work and suffering are endured by those families.

If the heirs don't deserve to keep the family farm then who should get it? You, by way of government confiscation?au, contraire......grew up on the ole family dairy farm that my family settled in 1895 in Oklahoma five miles south of Enid. Started my share of chores when still single-digit in age and did so through HS. Hated it enough to get a college education (took me 8+ years at ivy-league institutions, though). Especially hated the 10F mornings chopping insilage out of the silo to feed those stinking cows. Believe me, I know all about 'family farms' and what makes them work and not work. Just like any other small business, what makes them not work is poor management and greed. Gee.........that sounds just like what makes large business not work. :crap:

[johnnymossville]

Thanks for bringing this up. After some reasonable amount, say $500K, or so, then estate taxes should be 100%. You didn't earn it by right-of-birth. Contrary to many folks belief, we do not have a royalty system in the U.S. So you have to give up the family farm or business someone else built. Well, boo-hoo. Go buy or earn it yourself. As an aside, as a consultant who helped small businesses value and then sell themselves, most of the ones I dealt with that tried to pass the business along to the heirs invariably failed. When the owner makes $3MM and then all his children think they should each make $3MM, doesn't work very well. But don't try to tell the kids that.

So what you're saying is that we don't really own anything, we just sorta rent it until we no longer need it or toss it aside, the govt. takes it, or we die. Whichever comes first.

I for one kinda like the idea of gifting my kids something I worked hard for. If they squander it away I'd rather they do it than ol'Uncle O. I think they have a word for it. Freedom. But hey, whatever,... Ever increasing taxes pretty much ensures I won't want any part of the sizable property my parents have struggled for their whole lives so it's all a moot point anyway.

[NRRider]

While we don't agree on many points (we've essentially used the bogus 'supply-side' economics since raygun) I only mention that no president decides on taxes. It is congress (see the "New Element" thread), in all its wisdom, that makes tax policy (law). And you couldn't find a worse bunch of shills on both sides of the aisle (and in between).

On the first point, I can't recall a tax bill enacted during my adult life that was not supported by the then-sitting president. More than that, the president typically supplied the catalyst for many of the larger tax increase/decrease provisions in the bills that passed.

On the second point, I couldn't agree with you more. Makes me ill, especially when you read some of the provisions in the first version of the most recent "stimulus" bill, and witness the republican bickering over the final version. Even the final bill has provisions that make me want to puke. Not as bad as the 1986 tax act, but given the purpose of this bill and the situation we're in they should be ashamed of themselves.

Frankly I thought it would have been a great opportunity for Obama to show some real strength and independence and say enough is enough, but he didn't.

[Tobias]

I get tired of the response "so and so did it first." ok, we've had presidents in the past who ran up huge deficits. I get it. let's move on. that misguided presidents did it before does not mean we can or should continue to do it. and like it or not, that is exactly what's happening. to blame the rich or the auto industry or anyone other than congress for getting us where we are is misguided at the very least and dangerous most likely.
we're not gonna be able to tax and spend our way out of this. there will need to be programs cut, ceased or scaled way back. we simply can not afford to offer them.
dem or rep or ind....+1
Many Dems are also not taking into account the almost-exponential growth in entitlements which leaves less each year to run the country.
It's the biggest elephant in the room and everyone acts like it's not there. :confused:

[Tobias]

It's one thing for the guy on the street to have complete ignorance on this topic, but when Washington acts like they don't quite understand (or simply don't care) that makes markets nervous, since a systemic change might be very hard to unwind and we'll be poorer and weaker (in the aggregate) for our lifetimes, potentially.I'd take those odds and bet on near certainty.
Listening to Bernanke testify shows that some in Washington don't grasp the problems at all. It goes beyond agreeing with them or not, it's that many are clueless.

[97CSI]

On the second point, I couldn't agree with you more. Makes me ill, especially when you read some of the provisions in the first version of the most recent "stimulus" bill, and witness the republican bickering over the final version. Even the final bill has provisions that make me want to puke. Not as bad as the 1986 tax act, but given the purpose of this bill and the situation we're in they should be ashamed of themselves.

Frankly I thought it would have been a great opportunity for Obama to show some real strength and independence and say enough is enough, but he didn't.Obama is as eloquent as congress is wretched. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal. But those folks in congress are clowns. Even worse than the media. It is like some sort of sickness gets to them when they get elected to congress. Hopefully, the god Obama believes in will be watching over him, and by extension, all of the rest of us. With congress, we'll need all the help we can get.

[SamIAm]

Thanks for bringing this up. After some reasonable amount, say $500K, or so, then estate taxes should be 100%. You didn't earn it by right-of-birth. Contrary to many folks belief, we do not have a royalty system in the U.S. So you have to give up the family farm or business someone else built. Well, boo-hoo. Go buy or earn it yourself. As an aside, as a consultant who helped small businesses value and then sell themselves, most of the ones I dealt with that tried to pass the business along to the heirs invariably failed. When the owner makes $3MM and then all his children think they should each make $3MM, doesn't work very well. But don't try to tell the kids that.

I have to think, hope even, that you are not serious here. But it does dovetail a bit with a key point I was trying to make.

Extreme tax policy does not lead to greater tax revenue, but instead to extreme tax avoidance.

[Tobias]

I'm not trying to claim that Clinton's tax increase is why the economy did well (although it did play a big role in balancing the budget) - but it obviously didn't HURT the economy or prevent a lot of people from becoming fabulously wealthy during the 90s.

Just tying to be clear about the specifics of what we're arguing about here. Lemme know if I have this wrong.

-RayMost of that was due to the tech bubble, wasn't it? Short term paper wealth for most with very few that actually cashed out?

I don't see bubbles as a good thing regardless of what they accomplish short-term. All that "paper" wealth created in the 90s resulted in a serious downturn in the early 2000s, right?

The housing bubble must unwind just like the tech bubble, and taking all these government steps at a cost that we can't afford in order to make it unwind faster is crazy IMO. Slow is good in that it will keep us from overshooting. Why inflate a housing market that is already too inflated? :confused: Not only that, but how do we stop the programs once implemented?

[johnnymossville]

...but how do we stop the programs once implemented?

Not only stopping, but just maintaining them costs more and more every year in an ever expanding blob of crap. There is no going back until it finally gets so bad there is revolution.

Obviously we aren't there yet because the blob just keeps getting bigger.

[SamIAm]

Most of that was due to the tech bubble, wasn't it? Short term paper wealth for most with very few that actually cashed out?

I don't see bubbles as a good thing regardless of what they accomplish short-term. All that "paper" wealth created in the 90s resulted in a serious downturn in the early 2000s, right?

The housing bubble must unwind just like the tech bubble, and taking all these government steps at a cost that we can't afford in order to make it unwind faster is crazy IMO. Slow is good in that it will keep us from overshooting. Why inflate a housing market that is already too inflated? :confused: Not only that, but how do we stop the programs once implemented?

Doesn't it seem laughable in hind site to consider a program that would have propped up all the dot-coms to ensure that they wouldn't fail? We all know that as soon as that support was removed or phased out, they would have failed anyway.

[Tobias]

Contrary to many folks belief, we do not have a royalty system in the U.S. So you have to give up the family farm or business someone else built. Well, boo-hoo. Go buy or earn it yourself.I don't expect to get anything from my parents so I'm not being greedy here.

This statement seems cold and obviously hit a nerve with many. If your parents decided to leave you their farm, it should be yours, not split amongst 300 million strangers. That's not royalty, it's called family.

[Samster]

Without the chance for major income disparity, the pie is stagnant.disagree. casual empiricism suggests that nations exhibiting economic success are more likely to have a bell-curve of income distribution with the middle 60% representing a financially healthy "middle-class". less successful nations typically exhibit a dense spike on the poor end and a thin spike at the rich end. the latter type are typically "corrupt" by western standards. but we do business with them anyway.

it doesn't seem to me that disparity is what a nation wants, even as a perceived "chance." you want a healthy middle class all striving to become income outliers (on the high end) that continually pulls the middle class up (increased standards of living on average). you don't want to put the dream out of reach.

this nation had that for a long while. however, it's not clear how you re-engineer this kind of environment through government means without disincentivizing the very behaviors you need. and in that, i agree with earlier statements that progressive taxes are not the answer.

[Samster]

After some reasonable amount, say $500K, or so, then estate taxes should be 100%.try north korea for your next place of citizenship. i hear they're accepting applications. (this post is meant to be a joke, obviously.)

[Samster]

I don't expect to get anything from my parents so I'm not being greedy here.

This statement seems cold and obviously hit a nerve with many. If your parents decided to leave you their farm, it should be yours, not split amongst 300 million strangers. That's not royalty, it's called family.
uh, no. that would be 303 million strangers. though with facebook, it may be possible to have 3 million friends.

[97CSI]

try north korea for your next place of citizenship. i hear they're accepting applications. (this post is meant to be a joke, obviously.)Too cold up there. But the 'family farm' crap is just a red-herring for the rich. When the country had something akin to reasonable estate laws there were provisions for the real family farms. You make it, you spend it. I know your kids are just like mine......the most wonderful in the world. But, if they want it, it is not their birthright. Let them earn it. I'm changing my by-line to "Eat the idle rich."

[csm]

I've got to stop reading these.

[Samster]

You make it, you spend it.i think that is _exactly_ the point. a will is nothing more than planned spending.

[1centaur]

disagree. casual empiricism suggests that nations exhibiting economic success are more likely to have a bell-curve of income distribution with the middle 60% representing a financially healthy "middle-class". less successful nations typically exhibit a dense spike on the poor end and a thin spike at the rich end. the latter type are typically "corrupt" by western standards. but we do business with them anyway.

it doesn't seem to me that disparity is what a nation wants, even as a perceived "chance." you want a healthy middle class all striving to become income outliers (on the high end) that continually pulls the middle class up (increased standards of living on average). you don't want to put the dream out of reach.

this nation had that for a long while. however, it's not clear how you re-engineer this kind of environment through government means without disincentivizing the very behaviors you need. and in that, i agree with earlier statements that progressive taxes are not the answer.

Don't confuse outcome with potential. People buy stocks looking to make 50% and make 8%, say, but if they thought they'd make 8% they'd buy bonds (i.e., settle for mediocre returns without much effort). A large middle class likely reflects a good match of skill base to economic potential within a given country (or a corrupt socialist state with the wealth horded by the bureaucrats) - the manual labor of the auto industry in the middle of the American century for example. If Joe Jenius is working alongside Alan Average, and Joe Jenius knows that if he works his butt off, gets lucky, and persuades others of his genius he has a shot at a Porsche and a mansion he will act differently than if he is told he might make $40k while Alan Average makes $30k.

We want our best and brightest striving for maximum success, not figuring out their efforts will amount to little due to social strictures (some of Europe) or confiscatory tax regimes. America's problem with wealth reflects the income accruing to intellect rather than manual labor at this stage of our development - the disparities between the smart guys and the dumb guys is very significant and is significantly rewarded. Hedge fund guys becoming multi-billionaires, CEOs becoming centi-millionaires, software developers; movie producers, on and on. In that world, wealth dispersion increases, especially when the good manual labor jobs have moved offshore. Society benefits from people who strive to be rich; wealth disparity is a more complex topic.

[Samster]

not confused. and i still disagree.
Don't confuse outcome with potential.

[David Kirk]

Interesting. Eight pages and this hasn't been settled, no one has admitted they were wrong and no one can claim victory.

How about this? -

Campy = deficit spending
Shimano = balanced budget




dave

[johnnymossville]

Interesting. Eight pages and this hasn't been settled, no one has admitted they were wrong and no one can claim victory.

How about this? -

Campy = deficit spending
Shimano = balanced budget

dave

I've got a bike with both campy and shimano! What's that? LOL

[93legendti]

I claim victory.

Yesterday, I wrote that every time the President speaks about the economy the market goes down. The President spoke and the Dow lost 80 points. The Nasdaq lost 16 points.

I wish I had been wrong.

[Climb01742]

Interesting. Eight pages and this hasn't been settled, no one has admitted they were wrong and no one can claim victory.

How about this? -

Campy = deficit spending
Shimano = balanced budget




dave

from the sidelines, it's kind of fun/sad to watch history repeat itself.

[Samster]

Interesting. Eight pages and this hasn't been settled, no one has admitted they were wrong and no one can claim victory.

How about this? -

Campy = deficit spending
Shimano = balanced budget




dave
it's more interesting if it can't be settled. this way we can prattle on and on. hey, i just want to be the last post. someone, please lock this thread NOW.

[giordana93]

I claim victory.

Yesterday, I wrote that every time the President speaks about the economy the market goes down. The President spoke and the Dow lost 80 points. The Nasdaq lost 16 points.

I wish I had been wrong.


yet it's still higher than it was 2 days ago, no?

[Elefantino]

Italian? Japanese?

We should all by SRAM because it's American.

Except that it isn't.

[michael white]

[QUOTE=1cen Society benefits from people who strive to be rich; wealth disparity is a more complex topic.[/QUOTE]


Society also benefits from those who do not strive to be rich. Who is more valuable to society, Vincent Van Gogh or Steve Jobs? let's say one Vincent Van Gogh vs. 100 Steve Jobs? sorry, it doesn't compute. There is no number of Steve Jobs which is of equivalent value to one Van Gogh. That comparison will hold up to a greater and greater extent with each passing year, and anyone who doesn't understand that is, to be completely frank, a deeply unfortunate soul. Equating talent to money is a fool's game. Richness of life, quality of life, and the ultimate worth of a civilization are not to be found anywhere close to that mindset--

Whitman and Thoreau were paupers, Centaur, and by that I mean truly penniless paupers by choice who could not publish and were of no monetary worth. They define this country in a way that no CEO is even capable of imagining, and in a way that no CEO ever has imagined, much less a financial whiz such as yourself, and that's mainly because the CEO is just too out and out stupid to know what matters. And I'd toss in the teachers of the artists above as being members of society more likely to get it, and of far more value, inestimable value, to society and its future and its vision and what holds us together, than any of the classes of folks Centaur meant when he used the word "talent." Centaur, your thinking in this matter literally makes my skin crawl.

best,
mw

[Tobias]

from the sidelines, it's kind of fun/sad to watch history repeat itself.What if this is a historical inflection point like none before from which we can’t return? Do you not consider that possibility? :confused:

[97CSI]

What if this is a historical inflection point like none before from which we can’t return? Do you not consider that possibility? :confused:It could be. The rich have become so fantastically greedy that they don't care that they kill off the middle-class. So greedy that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The middle-class.

[Blue Jays]

Steve Jobs has benefitted society far more than Vincent Van Gogh.
Apple computers revolutionized the world and has further enabled the sharing of petabytes worth of information, a couple nice paintings...not so much. ;)

[johnnymossville]

I've seen Van Gogh paintings up close in the museum and really enjoyed the experience, yet the guy who picks up my trash on Tuesday morning has far more impact on my life personally.

Would I miss the experience of not seeing Starry Night, probably. Would I want garbage stacked a couple stories high outside my house? Definitely NOT!

Ofcourse I'm kidding, but ya gotta put things in perspective.

[1centaur]

Society also benefits from those who do not strive to be rich. Centaur, your thinking in this matter literally makes my skin crawl.

best,
mw

You probably need to see a dermatologist.

Do I really need to write "(of course, there are many other ways in which society can benefit from motives other than profit. The art of Van Gogh or the warmth of a mother's touch create a level of joy that enriches everyone, directly or indirectly, in ways that are of far more value than any amount of money)" ?

When I am talking economics and human nature, that's my topic, not what's valuable in a general sense. I did not say that society ONLY benefits from the profit motive, nor did I imply it. And I use the word "talent" so I don't have to write 2 or 3 sentences painfully elaborating all the characteristics that are rare and therefore valued monetarily (while of course making sure that nobody thinks those are the only characteristics that matter in life).

A better standard of living allows for more Van Goghs and lots of other great, fun, and maybe even morally superior (feeling) stuff. A better standard of living is paid for with GDP growth (and maybe even appropriate regulations - do I need to say that, too?). GDP growth is made up of lots of little economic events that become more frequent when motivation is there. Profit is a very human motivation. Clear(asil)?

It's always best to assume that I am not some cliche of hoary, exploitative, blind greed. I have not even met such a cliche (to my knowledge), let alone lived my life as one.

[Ray]

I've been trying to stay out of the political muck to a great degree. But since the thread has turned semi-philosophical, I'm gonna mention a great story I heard recently. I have no idea if its true. It doesn't really matter.

Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut had places out in a fairly wealthy part of Long Island. They were talking at a party that was thrown by one of their EXTREMELY wealthy neighbors, who was a mogul of some sort, Wall St or Show Biz or something. Most of the folks at the party were incredibly wealthy, big players in the financial world, and most of the conversation at the party revolved around how many hundreds of millions so and so had vs how many tens of millions some other guy had. Vonnegut said to Heller something like, 'you know Joe, I thought we were pretty well off, but being at this party, I realize that I could write another thousand great books and win every literary prize and I'd never have one tenth of what the poorest of these people have. And Heller said back to Vonnegut, 'Kurt, I have something that most of these people will NEVER have - enough'.

Words to live by, imho.

-Ray

[93legendti]

I've been trying to stay out of the political muck to a great degree. But since the thread has turned semi-philosophical, I'm gonna mention a great story I heard recently. I have no idea if its true. It doesn't really matter.

Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut had places out in a fairly wealthy part of Long Island. They were talking at a party that was thrown by one of their EXTREMELY wealthy neighbors, who was a mogul of some sort, Wall St or Show Biz or something. Most of the folks at the party were incredibly wealthy, big players in the financial world, and most of the conversation at the party revolved around how many hundreds of millions so and so had vs how many tens of millions some other guy had. Vonnegut said to Heller something like, 'you know Joe, I thought we were pretty well off, but being at this party, I realize that I could write another thousand great books and win every literary prize and I'd never have one tenth of what the poorest of these people have. And Heller said back to Vonnegut, 'Kurt, I have something that most of these people will NEVER have - enough'.

Words to live by, imho.

-Ray
And who defined "enough"? The President? Congress? Or Heller?

[giordana93]

ok. I disagree with centaur. I will say why. I will not say his thinking makes my skin crawl. or that he wears funny pants or even "yo momma".

For me the fundamental difficulty is that rugged American individualism has led to the loss (maybe it was never there, of course) of a sense of collective values, of a larger communal belonging and sharing (which only comes out when we have a collective enemy or, more rarely, hero). we do everything to be alone and work for me, myself, and I, although the latter will also include family, church, maybe a very local community, but that's it. there is no sense of civic duty, of civic belonging, etc. I get in MY car to drive (alone) to my little cubicle/office to work with people I have no real social bonds to, then back (more often than not, and certainly it remains the ideal) to my somewhat isolated suburban home, gated community with fences so I don't have to see or talk to my neighbors. and my local taxes are to pay for MY school district, or forget public school, I want the best money can buy for MY kids, you other guys can do what you want. same thing for my health care plan and so on. I got mine, get yours. that's cool, I guess, it's the good old protestant work ethic, american individualism that we are programmed to believe as universal values. but they aren't. they are American bourgeois values (and that is a purely descriptive term, neither negative or positive, but 93legendti can go look up the communist manifesto, quote it, and call me a commy, I mean a Tchmil ! :beer: I'll get over it). like I said above, I'm not really opposed to most of these principles, it's just that the gap between the have and have nots in this country are greater than just about anywhere else in the world. no, I take that back, anywhere else in the modern industrialized world.
anyway, I know this could stir up the hornet's nest, but that's just how I see it, but then again, I don't pay enough taxes compared to some of the big fish here because I literally will make less in my entire career than some make in a year, and I've got an ivy league doctorate. bfd.




Us and Them
(Waters, Wright) 7:40

Us, and them
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

"I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short,
sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off
lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once!
It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners
don't cost nothing do they, eh?"

Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
With, without.
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind.
For the want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.


long live rick wright (he died last september at 65)
link to us and them on youtube if anyone cares.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBBRhmH4S8A&feature=related

[SamIAm]

it's just that the gap between the have and have nots in this country are greater than just about anywhere else in the world. no, I take that back, anywhere else in the modern industrialized world.


Could the reason for this, assuming its correct, simply be that there is more opportunity here?

[Louis]

Could the reason for this, assuming its correct, simply be that there is more opportunity here?

Could be, but I doubt it's one thing as simple as "opportunity."

An entire system has evolved to support what some people call opportunity and others might call something else. The question in my mind is whether over the long term (say the next 100 years) that system is most appropriate for all (or most) Americans, not just the small percentage of opportunists who are successful. Society means everyone.

Semi-unrelated point: We can't let the "bad guys" (use any term you like for the folks generally responsible for the fix we're currently in, bankers, Greenspan, greedy Wall Street types, stupid mortgagees, whatever) bring down our economy too many more times. Folks just won't allow that to happen again any time soon and laws will be written to try to prevent that particular type of market failure.

[Samster]

Could be, but I doubt it's one thing as simple as "opportunity."

An entire system has evolved to support what some people call opportunity and others might call something else. The question in my mind is whether over the long term (say the next 100 years) that system is most appropriate for all (or most) Americans, not just the small percentage of opportunists who are successful. Society means everyone.

Semi-unrelated point: We can't let the "bad guys" (use any term you like for the folks generally responsible for the fix we're currently in, bankers, Greenspan, greedy Wall Street types, stupid mortgagees, whatever) bring down our economy too many more times. Folks just won't allow that to happen again any time soon and laws will be written to try to prevent that particular type of market failure.+1. my inner democrat wins over my outer republican on this one. the big guys on wall street play a game that basically amounts to moving the markets (mostly debt, and partly equity) to reap gains. it's poker, basically, and we individuals are left to guess their moves if we want to profit by following along. a lot of wall street wealth wasn't built on opportunity as much as it was on outright fraud, market manipulation and a lot of questionable behavior. i can't believe some of this stuff was fcukin allowed. it's just unbelievable.

[Samster]

snipped from a Michael Lewis article in Portfolio. this one's public so it's pretty well sanitized. get one of your hedge fund buddies really drunk and you'll extract even better stuff...
++++++++
"For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.

But he couldn’t figure out exactly how the rating agencies justified turning BBB loans into AAA-rated bonds. “I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number."
++++++++

that last sentence just kills me.

[mikki]

Can we say superficial here?

Michael Douglas also gave a great speech in the American President, but it was make belief; not real. Obama’s speech was great as a speech (we all know he’s great at talking in front of cameras) but there was nothing new at all; no additional clarity on anything. Well, except maybe for doing a 180 on all the Apocalypse rhetoric and returning to a message of hope -- per Bill Clinton’s recommendation.

Returning to the original post’s question: The bounce yesterday was due to Ben Bernanke’s additional clarity on the conditions of the banks, how they will be stress tested, and that they are working on a “uniform” way to proceed.

Obama remained anti-business which shows in today’s market opening. His speech did nothing to settle Wall Street and investors. Personally, I was very disturbed at the wedge he keeps driving between us. Those of you who agree with him 150% don’t see it, but those on the fence or opposed to his anti-business, anti-Wall-Street, anti-free markets, anti-rich, anti-everything except for a welfare state are not going to be moved by a speech that could have been delivered just as eloquently by Michael Douglas.

No substance, no meaning, no progress. With every empty speech he confirms to many like me that he’s an idealist with little substance. And little practical management skills. And with every attack on what some hold dear all he is doing is driving a bigger wedge between us all. Sorry but that’s the truth ATMO.

Words alone don’t mean much to many Americans. Many of us still feel that actions speak louder than words. ;)

This forum seems to have a much larger Democratic/spend bend than it does a Republican/fiscally conservative one so I applaud your courage to speak up.

We do have to hope Obama will be able to guide us through all of this mess without most losing those things it has taken us our lifetime to create(homes, businesses, the promise of social security when we reach the age to need it).

[1centaur]

samster - the agency's lack of downside modeling is appalling. I have been more disheartened from what I have heard about their capacities in this whole thing (including through today) than most of what I've heard. The arithmetic of turning BBBs into AAAs is really quite simple and real, but it all falls apart if you have a really dumb model. BTW, this is a good example of why I don't like reversion to the mean upwards trend theories of the US equity market. The long-term truism of rising real estate prices was just as established as that truism is for the stock market, but this episode shows that neither is to be relied upon.

Fraud and greed exists from Washington to Wall Street to the auto body shop down the street, and everybody's hurt by it. That's why we have regulations/laws, which always must adapt to the latest version of human "ingenuity." I am not yet convinced that MBS modelers knew structures would blow up and laughed at the agencies because they did not. That kind of insight should have been expressed much more widely in the hedge fund community for years because that knowledge would have made anybody rich. That so few made good money from the debacle suggests naivete on both sides, regardless of the presumed meaning of any smirks.

[1centaur]

BTW, one should never use the extreme riches of a tiny number to justify removing the opportunity for millions to make far less yet still much more than less productive members of society. People who start small and successful businesses and make $1MM or $2MM in a good year are of great benefit to us, and people who save $2-$3MM by retirement after working 40 years and saving in the stock market (and paying most of the government's yearly bill) are exactly what we want people to aspire to.

[Climb01742]

1centaur, did you happen to catch charlie rose's interview with john mack (morgan stanley ceo)? he struck me as an intelligent guy with a conscience.

[ti_boi]

Oh Yeah.............Don't mistake my appreciation for a good speech with any expectation that the government will be able to achieve anything of substance. They cannot and will not.

Just look at the simple task of maintaining roads.....our shared and possibly most valuable asset as cyclists...they are a disgrace.

I have zero faith in the government. I hated the Bush years as they spent countless billions on a misdirected war one huge crime against humanity and out collective pocketbook.

No sir....I do not...I repeat...do not believe that we will come out of this without pain and suffering...which in some cases is simply the market and the results of people buying more than they can afford.

This country has very little in the way of safety nets. Our infrastructure is third world. Our corporations are our only safe havens and if you are fortunate enough to be able to play that game you survive.

Our government is a complete and total failure on both sides of the aisle.

[97CSI]

BTW, one should never use the extreme riches of a tiny number to justify removing the opportunity for millions to make far less yet still much more than less productive members of society. People who start small and successful businesses and make $1MM or $2MM in a good year are of great benefit to us, and people who save $2-$3MM by retirement after working 40 years and saving in the stock market (and paying most of the government's yearly bill) are exactly what we want people to aspire to.Unfortunately, the number is not 'tiny'. Letting the dubya tax cuts lapse is a step in the right direction, though. No one is so unique that they are worth the $10MMs or $100MMs many of these folks, in collusion with their boards, pay themselves and their 'peers'. Fortune runs a 'top pay' list and performance review each year. It is obvious that pay is not based on performance, other than ripping off the public or taxpayers or share-holders (I'm all three and don't like it).

And, whomever thinks that 'best and brightest' pertains to who runs companies is sadly mistaken. One thing that was taught in MBA school, at least when I attended, was that the top three criteria for getting into senior management were all based on how well you were liked by the current senior management. Are you 'one of them'. Are they going to want to hang out with you at the country club. Actual performance, as in making money for the company and doing the right thing for the share-holders and employees were down in 7th or 8th place. And nothing has changed.

And, for those who are touting Jindal, here is a good rundown on his performance.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090225/Panning.Jindal/

[SamIAm]

Our government is a complete and total failure on both sides of the aisle.


I don't have a problem with this. I have very, very, very (let's just cal it zero) respect for politicians.

[97CSI]

I don't have a problem with this. I have very, very, very (let's just cal it zero) respect for politicians.Something that we can all agree on. :banana:

[Ray]

Something that we can all agree on. :banana:
Nope. I don't. I've worked with lots of 'em and they're among the smartest and most comprehensive thinkers I've run across, and I've dealt with all manner of engineers, lawyers, Chamber of Commerce folks, business folks of all stripes from the local dairy farmers to the real estate professionals to the heads of the biggest companies in the areas I've worked in. Some politicians suck, of course - some are true to the worst stereotypes, but a large majority of them are very impressive. Its an impossible job to try to represent the needs of a few thousand (local), or many thousands (state), or hundreds of thousands to millions (federal) of constituents, who represent a huge diversity of interests and opinions. If you haven't pissed off a lot of people on all sides, you're not doing your job. The only ones people tend to like are those who represent districts/wards/towns that aren't very diverse. So the rep can take a hardline that most of his or her constituents will like and still be able to get elected. But if there's any economic or ideological or political diversity to the area represented, the politician that attempts to represent it WILL piss people off. Like lawyers, they're really easy to criticize because their job inherently requires a lot of compromise and deal making.

Think about it for a minute. The politician that I would like most probably ran for something at some point but got his ass kicked because I have a singular perspective and appealing strongly to me will NOT win you votes with most folks. The same holds for the politician that you or Sam or any other individual would like most. The ones that get elected are the one's who do the best job of posturing, being mealy mouthed, spinning the same position differently to different audiences, etc. Sounds like a terrible recommendation, but its the ONLY way to be effective and get anything done in a diverse democracy.

Before you dump on them, try it sometime. Run for something. Then, after you get elected, try to get one TENTH of what you ran on through the legislative process and into law. THEN let me know what you think. Its just way too easy to find a class of scapegoats and dump on them.

-Ray

[SamIAm]

Nope. I don't. I've worked with lots of 'em and they're among the smartest and most comprehensive thinkers I've run across, and I've dealt with all manner of engineers, lawyers, Chamber of Commerce folks, business folks of all stripes from the local dairy farmers to the real estate professionals to the heads of the biggest companies in the areas I've worked in. Some politicians suck, of course - some are true to the worst stereotypes, but a large majority of them are very impressive. Its an impossible job to try to represent the needs of a few thousand (local), or many thousands (state), or hundreds of thousands to millions (federal) of constituents, who represent a huge diversity of interests and opinions. If you haven't pissed off a lot of people on all sides, you're not doing your job. The only ones people tend to like are those who represent districts/wards/towns that aren't very diverse. So the rep can take a hardline that most of his or her constituents will like and still be able to get elected. But if there's any economic or ideological or political diversity to the area represented, the politician that attempts to represent it WILL piss people off. Like lawyers, they're really easy to criticize because their job inherently requires a lot of compromise and deal making.

Think about it for a minute. The politician that I would like most probably ran for something at some point but got his ass kicked because I have a singular perspective and appealing strongly to me will NOT win you votes with most folks. The same holds for the politician that you or Sam or any other individual would like most. The ones that get elected are the one's who do the best job of posturing, being mealy mouthed, spinning the same position differently to different audiences, etc. Sounds like a terrible recommendation, but its the ONLY way to be effective and get anything done in a diverse democracy.

Before you dump on them, try it sometime. Run for something. Then, after you get elected, try to get one TENTH of what you ran on through the legislative process and into law. THEN let me know what you think. Its just way too easy to find a class of scapegoats and dump on them.

-Ray

I feel that my breakfast may not stay down. I need to stop reading this stuff right after meals.

[giordana93]

Could the reason for this, assuming its correct, simply be that there is more opportunity here?

actually, I don't think so. In fact it is precisely the opposite-- that there is, to a large degree, less opportunity here, if you are starting from the bottom.


well, to be specific, you are right: there is more opportunity for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer, or at least remain in poverty

[giordana93]

I feel that my breakfast may not stay down. I need to stop reading this stuff right after meals.

I think the analogy with bad referees is compelling here. In a way, it's a job that nobody wants, and certainly "the best and brightest" will not be drawn to public service except through great moral conviction, and getting back to my "thinking about the self/individual" vs thinking about the community/greater whole, let's face it, most politicians go into for themselves, and who can blame them because the model for success is judged on how much money and power one can make, and this applies to almost all our liberal professions

[93legendti]

February 26, 2009


House ignores Obama’s call for sacrifice, votes to boost ’09 budget

By David Lightman
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The day after President Barack Obama told Congress that it would have to “sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars,” the House passed a massive budget bill Wednesday that increases spending by 8% over last year.

The 245-178 vote, largely along party lines, came less than 24 hours after Obama stood in the House chamber and pleaded for fiscal restraint. All but 20 Democrats voted for the measure.

...“It’s time the Democrats started putting their money where their mouth is,” said Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana.

On Tuesday, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, Obama discussed the soaring federal budget deficit, which is expected to top $1.4 trillion this year.

"Given these realities,” he said, “everyone in this chamber — Democrats and Republicans — will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.”

...The spending plan now goes to the Senate, where it faces opposition from Republicans and some moderate Democrats. Congress must pass some kind of funding legislation by March 6 or domestic programs will run out of money.

Obama hasn’t signaled whether he’ll get involved. He has emphasizing his budget for fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1, and he plans to release an outline of it today.

The full 2010 budget is expected in April. Democrats are optimistic that they can pass the spending bills that make up the budget by Oct. 1.

Obama has tried to distance himself from the bill. He didn’t mention it in his address Tuesday and has repeatedly criticized earmarks, local projects that lawmakers insert into such measures without review. This bill contains about 9,000 such earmarks, at a total of about $3.8 billion.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., defended them, suggesting that no one knows local needs as local lawmakers do, and that very few of the earmarks are controversial. The alternative, he said, is to have “the White House and bureaucrats” making such local decisions.

...The Republicans’ biggest complaint was that the bill seems to have few spending restraints; Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., called it a “wild-eyed spending bill.”

Democrats countered that it was the Republican Party that has been irresponsible. “I don’t want to hear lectures from people” who ran up the deficit by promoting war in Iraq and huge tax cuts, Obey said.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090226/NEWS15/90225113

Hey Mr. President: If you sign this bill, it will mean you lied about fiscal restraint and earmarks. Do you have the guts to stand up to your own party? Or, are your speeches just words on your trusty teleprompter?

Will you agree to investigate those lawmakers that took bribes from Freddie and Fannie, like Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank and Sen. Obama?

[Ray]

I feel that my breakfast may not stay down. I need to stop reading this stuff right after meals.
Well, that's a nice, easy response. Its easy to be disgusted with people who don't do as we think we would. But do me a favor. Imagine your perfect representative - someone who would do exactly what you would have done on almost every issue. Then think about what it would take for that person to get elected. If you can't see that happening, is it the fault of that politician or is your problem really with all of the other voters in your city/district/state/country who wouldn't vote for your idealized politician?

I don't expect this to be a popular position, but I'd like to see your better alternative if you're going to dump on the existing system of democratic representation. Which is really what you're doing when you condemn all (or nearly all) politicians as a class.

And I'm not being partisan here. I've worked with a lot more politicians who I tend to disagree with than who I tend to agree with. And they're generally damned impressive across partisan or ideological lines.

-Ray

[1centaur]

FWIW I do think a lot of CEOs are not that bright and they are overpaid because the shareholders are too diverse to change that, but they do tend to have social skills and a high work ethic that are rare in combination and thus highly compensated (this is more complex than I can describe in a sentence, so don't parse). That said, there are too few of them getting too much money to make them relevant to an economic policy discussion - they should be relegated to shareholder activism discussions, unless their actions have huge societal effects through their companies, and there again I think we might have some cause to agree on some issues.

[giordana93]

[I]February 26, 2009




Hey Mr. President: If you sign this bill, it will mean you lied about fiscal restraint and earmarks. Do you have the guts to stand up to your own party? Or, are your speeches just words on your trusty teleprompter?

Will you agree to investigate those lawmakers that took bribes from Freddie and Fannie, like Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank and Sen. Obama?

jeezum petes, enough already with the quotation of other sources as if they are unassailable. I'll repeat what I said somewhere above, that the media on both sides of this debate are worse even than the politicians. it's pure prostitution; their sole job is to sell a bill of goods to a public who wants to hear one side of the debate and demonize the other. this is just absolutely going back to Bush is a boob, Obama is a lying sack who is now taking bribes. (sorry, with the way campaign financing works in this country--an industry unto itself--they all are taking bribes.) oh, and I read in the paper that Obama was the anti-Christ. simply quoting what others have written in place of one's own words proves only that someone else thinks like me. bravo. we're still at us and them

[Tobias]

Nope. I don't. I've worked with lots of 'em and they're among the smartest and most comprehensive thinkers I've run across, and I've dealt with all manner of engineers, lawyers, Chamber of Commerce folks, business folks of all stripes from the local dairy farmers to the real estate professionals to the heads of the biggest companies in the areas I've worked in.There is a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom ATMO.

Take this article forwarded by an outraged "conservative" friend. How freaking stupid can politicians get in this country? Fortunately the outrage stopped this from going forward, but if left to politicians we’d use tax money to subsidize credit scores so unqualified people can buy houses they can’t afford in the first place.

Have we not learned anything yet? :crap:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6277344.html

"I do not understand how we can ever justify spending taxpayer dollars to pay somebody’s credit card,” she said. “I don’t understand how it can be even considered to come up. I am truly embarrassed. I think it shows poor leadership.”

and

“Giving people the ability to increase their credit score artificially because we’re allowing them to pay off their credit cards is exactly what got us into this (national economic) crisis in the first place,” she said.

[giordana93]

“Giving people the ability to increase their credit score artificially because we’re allowing them to pay off their credit cards is exactly what got us into this (national economic) crisis in the first place,” she said.

seriously, this is a joke, right? I can't imagine even the most conservative-leaning economist agreeing with this. or maybe I'm wrong. can someone honestly defend such a position? I'm all ears.

(and again, just because some politician or journalist SAID it was true does not make it so. this is like writing a term paper using wikipedia)

[giordana93]

and if you're going to cite an article, maybe some less selective citation? I bothered to follow the link and found this as the concluding paragraph:

Good intentions

Housing Director Richard S. Celli said that the plan would only have been able to help applicants pay off installment debt like student loans, and not revolving debts, such as credit cards.

“This program was never intended to pay off someone’s flat-screen plasma TV,” Celli said. “This program was intended for hardworking, credit worthy low- to moderate-income individuals who needed a helping hand in paying off some debt like a medical bill or a student loan.

The city has provided down payment grants and closing costs for 872 families since 2005. Only one family has ever had a foreclosure, Celli said.

I'm sure people will still see this as a government hand out, and so be it. but the low default rate, increase in home ownership in blighted areas..... now I can see why the government paying off credit card debt is what brought on the economic crisis. sheez. I'm spending too much time on this thread.

[Tobias]

seriously, this is a joke, right?Even democrats were outraged at the blatant stupidity of this idea. That you don’t see how absurd your position is means it’s not worth discussing with you. Sorry, but it’s pointless. You and I can’t agree on much of anything.

BTW, you now take the prize for the most liberal on the forum ATMO. :beer:


P.S. -- Not meant as an insult since I'm sure you are proud of being a liberal. ;)

[giordana93]

Even democrats were outraged at the blatant stupidity of this idea. That you don’t see how absurd your position is means it’s not worth discussing with you. Sorry, but it’s pointless. You and I can’t agree on much of anything.

BTW, you now take the prize for the most liberal on the forum ATMO. :beer:


P.S. -- Not meant as an insult since I'm sure you are proud of being a liberal. ;)

was it not obvious that the only thing I was calling out was her absurd assertion that "Giving people the ability to increase their credit score artificially because we’re allowing them to pay off their credit cards is exactly what got us into this (national economic) crisis in the first place”?
so first of all, just try to understand that, and again if anyone wants to defend that position, I'm open.
second, I just don't follow this statement: " That you don’t see how absurd your position is means it’s not worth discussing with you. Sorry, but it’s pointless. You and I can’t agree on much of anything." that you immediately follow up by saying I'm the most liberal on the forum. and pretend that it's not an insult because liberals are proud of being liberal. that's just the definition of disingenuous. and once again, we turn to name calling and superficial labeling rather than sticking to just a discussion of policy--what are the arguments in favor or against programs that increase home ownership among lower income populations? who is more to blame, the poor saps who got in over their heads (both inner city defaults as well as high rollers who just had to have the biggest shack even though it was beyond their means) or the guys who sell and package the loans, who have incentives to convince the buyers that they can afford more, or at the highest level, the banks that took on this bad but profitable debt (and here, of course, you would also have to add the credit card companies), since they were more afraid of having lower profits than competitors than they were of actually evaluating the dangers of such high risk investments

third, how can you possibly claim that my position is absurd when I did not claim any of these (those in the article) as my positions? there is absolutely nothing in my post that says I agree with the proposed policy, nothing. I simply wanted to show that a) the woman you cited was making a beyond ludicrous argument (that I don't see anyone here trying to defend) and the b) the article was cited out of context precisely because one of the interviewed people and indeed the concluding paragraphs specifically claimed that the money was not meant for credit card debt (and lets suspend for at least a moment the issues of how that might be implemented or enforced). I used bold not to endorse the position, merely to point out that it is a side of the argument that was completely erased by the citation as we were given, and in that does exactly what I've been complaining about: presenting one side of the argument, using ridicule for the other side, and advancing the discussion not one iota: look how stupid these people are. which is essentially the gist of too many of these discussion, including saying, look, I found the most liberal among us, and I refuse to entertain a discussion with him/her

so, no, I will not take the prize for most liberal on the forum; I don't even think a US citizen can qualify for that, as most of the European members, though they may be few, are probably chuckling at all of this. if you want true liberalism, head across the pond. (of course, they also have some more whacked out conservatives too!). I'll stay engaged here, but this tendency to quote outside sources, and then attribute the ideas to others or use them as proof of an argument is just really weak. as is the idea that we won't agree, therefore there is no need to continue. that means you quit, and if you take victory in that, well good for you. I hope it is abundantly clear that absolutely none of this is meant personally, it's just what I consider should be the rules of engagement. I would like to think we're still pretty far away from what BBD said when he left the show (tear each other apart or sth. like that)
carry on.

[giordana93]

somewhat more light-hearted:


American Express pays some customers to close accounts
Bloomberg News
February 24, 2009

American Express Co. is paying some cardholders $300 each to close accounts so the lender can reduce the risk of defaults as the recession deepens.

[Tobias]

was it not obvious that the only thing I was calling out was her absurd......snipped.... .Not to me, so for that I apologize.

I hope it is abundantly clear that absolutely none of this is meant personally, it's just what I consider should be the rules of engagement. I would like to think we're still pretty far away from what BBD said when he left the show (tear each other apart or sth. like that)
carry on.I was wrong in thinking you would take my comment about you being a liberal as a compliment. For that I also apologize.


My comment about debating this being pointless remains. You and I are so far apart on most everything having to do with government getting involved in what I consider to be personal matters that it can not be resolved here. Again, I did not mean to offend you in any way.

[giordana93]

thanks tobias. I really appreciate it.
I'm still not sure that we are so far apart that it's pointless to discuss, because like I said, I did not say, regarding the article, that I agreed with the policy. In fact, I don't, so there, I said it. I was just trying to keep this balanced and in our own words, not snips.
I just hate sound bite journalism. and then you have to take into account the context: Houston and the multiple constituents in city government. could have been Detroit, or where I'm stuck the last few years: Cleveland. Nobody has come up with many good ideas for US cities like these (and the latter two are hurting hard; the only reason it isn't worse here is that our bubble in cleveland never got too big, there's not much upward pressure on housing prices even in good times), and the best solution for those who have the means, is just to move out into the burbs, which just helps the implosion. I grew up in New Orleans (happy mardi gras, y'all!), which has endemic poverty and crime issues. one odd thing about NOLA, though, is that it's one city, more or less, (so the rich almost have to live with the poor), and there really aren't many areas to develop as suburbs (thanks to lake, river and swamps) unlike Cleveland, which has a dozen municipal governments--and talk about shock when I moved here, we pay CITY income tax: where you live and work: so we pay University heights, cleveland heights (even though the latter two share libraries and schools), and the city of cleveland. and the schools are weak in all three, so whoopee; and we get to pay for 3 mayors and city halls. so I'm not in favor of that (even though it's not so much "government getting into personal areas), but none of those respective cities would be willing to pool or share resources, even as industries leave the area. and as foreclosure goes up, no one in the private industry wants to step in, so at some point....

then again, I was against the banking industry bail out, too, but that was sold as "necessary"; is that somehow less outrageous (reward the risky behavior and not those that played it safe) and any less the abandonment of "let the market decide" and no goverment intervention?

anyway, I'll shut up now. let someone else have the chance for the last post

[Climb01742]

anyone read any good books lately?

[johnnymossville]

anyone read any good books lately?

Paris-Roubaix: A Journey Through Hell, I bought it recently and it has some of the finest writing about bicycle racing you'll find anywhere. Not to mention, the imagery is wonderful!

[Louis]

anyone read any good books lately?

The Fountainhead and Das Kapital :p

[Samster]

"under the black flag" by david cordingly.

"outliers" by malcolm gladwell.

"a history of god" by karen armstrong.

"between a rock and a hard place" by aaron ralston.

[Ray]

The Omnivore's Dilemma
A Movable Feast
A Long Strange Trip

and a couple of political ones I won't mention in the spirit of the question!

-Ray

[paczki]

Paris-Roubaix: A Journey Through Hell, I bought it recently and it has some of the finest writing about bicycle racing you'll find anywhere. Not to mention, the imagery is wonderful!

I also bought it recently, was going to start a thread about it. Best non-fiction cycling book I've ever read. Pictures are unreal.

[Climb01742]

my book recco: the story of edgar sawtelle.

thanks for roubaix suggestion. i'll order it today. :beer:

[93legendti]

The Yellow Jersey.

He did it again:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

4200 points lost since TARP. Let's do it again!

[giordana93]

yellow jersey, maybe, but it' s just his first. There's this other dude, a texan, who has seven in a row (I think he's the one who proposed and signed TARP)
:beer:

[beungood]

I'm reading the Art of War

[93legendti]

I'm reading the Art of War
A good read.

How's the new Hors?

[1centaur]

I read to my wife at night before we go to sleep and Edgar Sawtelle is on my short list.

BTW - Walt Mossberg in the WSJ gave a glowing review to the Kindle 2. I'll buy one.

[Ray]

BTW - Walt Mossberg in the WSJ gave a glowing review to the Kindle 2. I'll buy one.
Highly recommended. I have the first version and don't see any compelling enough improvements to upgrade, but I really like it. I wouldn't have predicted it, but I'm reading a lot more again since I got it. I thought it would just be a convenience for traveling and having all of my books in one place, no need for bookshelves in our smaller place, etc. But I'm reading tons more than I have in years. Dunno why, but I am. I've read that this is a pretty common phenomenon.

Anyway, enjoy it,

-Ray

[Louis]

BTW - Walt Mossberg in the WSJ gave a glowing review to the Kindle 2. I'll buy one.

I can understand the convenience and the search benefits, but I'd rather have a book. I don't want to rely on electronic hardware or software for storage of my reading.

If it was good enough for Gutenberg it's good enough for me. :cool:

[1centaur]

I like books too, but the one place I read most is on the trainer and there the button push page turn ought to make the whole experience easier. For example, thick hardbacks don't fit in cycling reading stands well, and I have a fan blowing on me that can turn pages not under the lip of the stand, so I have to use clips and take both hands off the bars to turn the page. Moreover, if the pdfing ability is any good I can actually do some work on the trainer...hmm, maybe I shouldn't :)

[rounder]

anyone read any good books lately?

I am reading the 75th anniversary campy book. The man was a hard working genius. I magine the shimano book will also be very good when it comes out.

[Samster]

I'm reading the Art of WarA good read.i thought that book was a little silly. especially the part about using guys strapped to kites as aerial spies. but maybe it was the translation... de gustibus non est disputandum.

[rounder]

I read to my wife at night before we go to sleep and Edgar Sawtelle is on my short list.

BTW - Walt Mossberg in the WSJ gave a glowing review to the Kindle 2. I'll buy one.

I was waiting for the train the other day and standing next to guy who seemed to be staring into a giant ipod. I asked...hey is that a kindle? It was and he showed it to me. It was pretty cool. It was compact and had a nice display. The book downloads seemed expensive (9.99 per). I would rather read a newspaper that you can hold in your hand, but they seem to be going the way of the blacksmith, except for the ones where the journalists seem to be out promoting their books. Miss the old days. Oh yeah, forgot that this is an Obama thread...i am concerned...hope that America re-finds its knack.

[ti_boi]

I was waiting for the train the other day and standing next to guy who seemed to be staring into a giant ipod. I asked...hey is that a kindle? It was and he showed it to me. It was pretty cool. It was compact and had a nice display. The book downloads seemed expensive (9.99 per). I would rather read a newspaper that you can hold in your hand, but they seem to be going the way of the blacksmith, except for the ones where the journalists seem to be out promoting their books. Miss the old days. Oh yeah, forgot that this is an Obama thread...i am concerned...hope that America re-finds its knack.


And by Knack.....you mean of course.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc3KXwd8ZWQ

[Ray]

I was waiting for the train the other day and standing next to guy who seemed to be staring into a giant ipod. I asked...hey is that a kindle? It was and he showed it to me. It was pretty cool. It was compact and had a nice display. The book downloads seemed expensive (9.99 per). I would rather read a newspaper that you can hold in your hand, but they seem to be going the way of the blacksmith, except for the ones where the journalists seem to be out promoting their books. Miss the old days. Oh yeah, forgot that this is an Obama thread...i am concerned...hope that America re-finds its knack.
I think they kind of suck for newspapers and most magazines (except those that are 90% + text, like the Atlantic), but are great for books. $9.99 is the price for a lot of new bestsellers (and is pretty cheap for a book that's otherwise only available in hardback for $30+), but a lot of older books are a lot cheaper. I picked up (err, downloaded) some old Hemingway, Wolfe, and Vonnegut for a couple of dollars each. And the price of books will no doubt come down when there's more competition.

There are new readers in the pipeline from other makers that are more like the size of a legal pad (with a touchscreen so they won't have to waste a lot of real estate on a keyboard that gets used very rarely) that look like they'll be a LOT better for newspapers and magazines. Color will happen eventually too. And these things are significantly easier on your eyes than reading on a computer screen and use waaaay less juice (a Kindle charge lasts me for weeks if I don't have the wireless turned on to download stuff). It'll be an interesting next few years for this technology, now that it finally appears to be getting some traction.

-Ray

[DfCas]

I'm interested in the Kindle because I have poor and failing eyesight. With the text magnifier, I can start reading books again.

[Viper]

I thought that was a very good speech he just gave to the military. He chose the right place to speak to the right people, US Marine Corp factory, Camp Lejeune. I thought the DOW would respond favorably.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end...You (US military) make up a fraction of the American population, but in an age when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, you did the opposite - you volunteered to bear the heaviest burden."

To my ears, this text was very Reaganesque:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/obamas-iraq-speech-video_n_170565.html

:beer:

[Ozz]

I thought this was funny.....now, back to your usual programming

[Viper]

I thought this was funny.....now, back to your usual programming

If I were Dogbert, I'd also let Gary Ackerman know that I can't afford a white carnation boutonnière on my lapel every day lol. The day I let a Gary Ackerman pounce on me is the day I hand in my man card and move into the local smurf village.

[johnnymossville]

I thought that was a very good speech he just gave to the military. He chose the right place to speak to the right people, US Marine Corp factory, Camp Lejeune. I thought the DOW would respond favorably...

The timetable for having all troops out of Iraq (Dec. 31, 2011) is the same as the one al-Maliki and Bush agreed upon already. This is nothing new, and all is still subject to change depending on what the Commanders on the ground say.

Obama's still campaigning I see. LOL

Don't get me wrong, I'm realllllly happy we are having them come home. It's ABOUT TIME!

[csm]

The timetable for having all troops out of Iraq (Dec. 31, 2011) is the same as the one al-Maliki and Bush agreed upon already. This is nothing new, and all is still subject to change depending on what the Commanders on the ground say.

Obama's still campaigning I see. LOL

Don't get me wrong, I'm realllllly happy we are having them come home. It's ABOUT TIME!

the campaigning never ends. he's got 2010 to worry about.

[Viper]

the campaigning never ends for LA. he's got the Critérium International to worry about.

^ fixed. :)

How cool was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-xR1HErmH8

:beer:

[93legendti]

This President is some kind of special fool. In the middle of an economic crisis and housing meltdown, he proposes....lowering the mortgage interest deduction.

If that's not bad enough, he proposes lowering the deduction for charitable contributions. Well, he figures, just tax the "rich". The government will take care of all those people formerly cared for by charities.

I guess when you have never run anything; never done anything; never drafted legislation, this is what happens. At least he is good at reading speeches.

2010 can't come soon enough.

[paulrad9]

2010 can't come soon enough.

Don't you mean 2013?

[beungood]

Everytime I look at it, I find myself sporting wood. I love it,just about finished gathering parts for it. need a cassette and brakes and a wheel trade and i'll be rolling. Still sore and hoping i can ride ...


A good read.

How's the new Hors?

[csm]

Don't you mean 2013?

midterm elections should be interesting. most of the stimulus was strangely timed to coincide with them. I think we're gonna see some housecleaning.

[Bruce K]

It appears like this one has run its course.

We're going round and round on the same stuff.

You can start a new thread on e-books, Hors Categories, etc. if you'd like but I believe it's time to let this one go.

BK