Dems in control!! Gotta spend more on welfare to buy themselves more votes.

Those are sound reasons. I have been warning about state and local spending for years. In my home town, and all over Pa and NJ, you see big new police stations, municipal buildings, shiny new cars, etc.

AND they game the systems so that a 20 years employees get pensions for life. PEGGED to their last 3 years (or highest 3) of wages. So you have the bosses giving out fat paychecks, what do they care?
The pension liabilities of state and municipalities is OFF THE CHARTS.

This is a major problem with gov jobs. They are all in on the scam. Stick it to the tax payer, cry to congress that they can't balance their budget and need bailouts. Their only recourse it to raise prop tax, sales tax, transfer taxes, and income taxes. In this economy they don't have a chance(of increasing$$$) in any of these areas....

When Chimpy craters the economy, he doesn't fuck around.

Go ahead Snipe, figure out a way to blame this mess on the Dems. Not that they aren't complicite, they just didn't plan and lead the march into fraud, waste and collapse. It took the Rethuglicans to lead us into the quicksand. They have never understood that they need buyers, not just a quick buck.

Excellent article. this is a process that has gone on for thousands of years, since the dawn of human civilization.

"When kings, pharaohs, or emperors try to tamper with a society's store of value, that value shifts.

Indeed, all the talk of deregulating or reregulating markets misses the simple yet essential point that the serial bailouts of 2008 were designed to avoid market consequences for bad investments. The New Year will demonstrate that this was a(nother) WASTE of both time and resources. In 2009, market forces will punish the human hubris that peaked in 2008, setting the stage for a brighter tomorrow."

Concise, fact based, mature opinion.

"This is a major problem with gov jobs. They are all in on the scam. Stick it to the tax payer, cry to congress that they can't balance their budget and need bailouts. Their only recourse it to raise prop tax, sales tax, transfer taxes, and income taxes. In this economy they don't have a chance(of increasing$$$) in any of these areas...." #2 | Posted by DavetheWave

Dave, Dave, Dave cheer up. Obama said he will create over 2.5 milliojn new government jobs. This is your chance to get on the gravy train.

try this one on for size, how long do you think it will take washington to disperse an economic stimulus package of several hundred billion dollars to local economies in the US? 6-8 months. well my prediction of the economy recovering by mid to late summer still stands.

Soory Dave, the major problem is that Wall Street owns Washington and is hell bent on stealing everything NOW. They were Obama's first backers and they're first in line now. Tommorrow just doesn't matter.

It took FDR 5 plus years to rescue America from the Republican fuck-up Hoover, and Hoover was a piker compared to George W Bush.

If the righties had any memory past the last piece of BS tools like Rush feed them, they'd never vote Republican again. Bush has finally proved only Republicans can set record deficits, create a depression AND lose two wars at the same time.

"It took the Rethuglicans to lead us into the quicksand. Concise, fact based, mature opinion." #4 | Posted by nutcase

The Dum-o-crats are the one who made the quicksand pit after decades of Dum-o-cratic Congressional rule. The same Congress that makes the rules and laws as well as spends the money. The Repubs just sat at the edge in awe of their power. The same power the Dum-o-crats have worked so hard to gain back.

Another "Concise, fact based, mature opinion".

well my prediction of the economy recovering by mid to late summer still stands

Truly clueless.

The Dum-o-crats are the one who made the quicksand pit after decades of Dum-o-cratic Congressional rule

Which decades, bud? Both parties are a crock of shit but these last eight years, which have marked a reversal from an extremely brief trend of balanced budgets and paying down our debts, were predominantly republican-owned. They were scared shitless of being at the top during a necessary recession around 2000-2001 and pussied out by supporting ridiculous tax cuts and low interest rates.

KBM,

On the one hand you have "Chicago School Economics" Freedom, Free Markets are the answer. This is the mantra of most Republicans. Democrats are not immune to this bullshit either.

On the other hand you have Keynsian Economics, which prescribs Government intervention in order to stimulate the economy and protect little people from the worthless silver spooned leaches that use inherited wealth to control Governments and economies. Even Nixon used Keynesian Theory when his re-election was on the line.

Bernanke, every Bush, Walker & BinLaden, Cheney, Dupont, the Fauds, Gramm, Greenspan, Madoff, Paulson, Pearle, Rothschilds, Rummy.... all scum, all Republican.

Rubin is a Democrat and a co-conspirator, but the Republican role overshadows Democrats by two orders of magnitude. Even more troubling is Geithner was in on the bailout deal and our new Treasury Secretary. This spells more bullshit and lots more economic trouble.

The fact that

"Soory Dave, the major problem is that Wall Street owns Washington and is hell bent on stealing everything NOW. They were Obama's first backers and they're first in line now. Tommorrow just doesn't matter.

#7 | Posted by nutcase"

Then obviously you KNOW NOTHING about unfunded pension liabilities...But you do have it right about WS backing Obama. The blue bloods have been 110% behind his campaign....

Unfortunately, given the political/economic/military and cultural messes created by GWB, it is a difficult prediction not to agree with.

Unfortunately, given the political/economic/military and cultural messes created by GWB, it is a difficult prediction not to agree with.

#15 | Posted by moder8

Already making excuses for a failed Obama Presidency.

In 2009, market forces will punish the human hubris that peaked in 2008, setting the stage for a brighter tomorrow.

I thought everybody decided that a free market wouldn't work and we needed to 'tweak it', despite zero evidence to support that theory?

I wish everybody would make up their minds, i need to know whether to buy stocks or get a job with one of the new numerous government ministries.

does anyone know where to buy a nice pair of jack-boots?

Dems in control!! Gotta spend more on welfare to buy themselves more votes.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-01-03 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Suddenly you and your fellow rightards have become fiscal?

When the hell did this happen? Wait....let me guess. It was when you lost the WH and now had to start pretending that the last 8 years either never happened or were someone else's fault.

If nothing, you sure have a convenient hypocritical view of things. Must make life easy. Good for you.

Largest act of 'Socialism' ever by a president in the History of the Nation happened under George 'Yes, I was a school cheerleader' Bush.

'Nuff said.

Anybody who assigns blame to either the Democrats or Republicans is sorely mistaken. America is no longer a constitutional republic. It went banana republic long ago. Now its being run by oligarchs. Their rivalries have only to do with the corporate factions they represent; it's a spoils system. Capitalism is dead.

2009 will break all records for economic collapse. No person or nation can borrow and spend itself back into prosperity. You'll see a correlation to the speed of the collapse with the size of Obama's deficits.

You'll be a loser if you your investments are dependent on the worth of real estate, stocks, savings or bonds. Layoffs will exceed over 500,000 a month. If your job is in finance, real estate and insurance, you stand better than even chances of being unemployed. There will be an avalanche of bankruptcies and foreclosures that will affect states as well as corporations and families.

Happy New Year!

Not for nothing but... We need to have a serious look at the general way in which state and local Muni's do business and put a stop to certain practices... The pension scam has to be outlawed in total... Along with several other things... The school system is the biggest waste I have ever seen. They throw money at them selves and at their friends and the kids get dumber and dumber....

We can site here and insult each other over Dems or Repubs for the next hundred years... Nothing will ever change that way though... We all need to start taking an active role in our local and state affairs...

I saw a perfect point made by a gentleman on this post about all the new Police stations and shiny Big cars... he is 100 percent correct on that. It is happening all over the country. Is that made possible from State, Local or federal money provided via Home Land Security? Who knows...? But we need to find out and doooooooooo something about it besides bitching about it on here.

The waste is incredible.... So far as I see it the Die is cast for the near future though... There well no doubt be some major collapses in state and local areas. The Business sector is another thing all together... But more people need to start looking at what is going on and get involved.

It is time for the little guy to have a say in our government in what goes on and who gets paid.

The entire issue here if you really look at it is that for the past two hundred years in this country. Government at all levels Local, State, and Federal has been a rich mans game! This needs to change.

I think we can all, Dems and Repubs alike agree on one thing here. Government has caused this problem. In one way or another it all leads back to Washington DC.

We can sit here and bitch or we can, TAKE IT BACK!

It is time for the little guy to have a say in our government in what goes on and who gets paid.

Oh please! You're dreaming. This political system can't be repaired. The reformers have only made the problem bigger with layer upon layer of patchwork, each reform trying to repair the problems caused by the previous reform.

Stop patronizing it and let it collapse. Let the termites and the cockroaches in our political system be exposed to the light of day. This country needs a another revolution, one that will break off from the kings and barons in Washington.

Sadly, Americans need to be taught the forgotten lessons about the dangers of big government. Then, and maybe then will there be a chance of creating a new system where government is limited to what it does best and constrained from what it does worst.

2009 will be worse than 2008 for the simple reasons that people (1) believe that Barack Obama is different from George Bush; (2) that his promises to borrow-and-spend our way back to another bubble economy is preferable to the alternative; (3) that banks will refuse to lend now that the US Congress sits on their boards of directors and will be calling for investigations every time a loan goes bad; (4) Obama has been surrounding himself with people who believe exactly the same as this administration does, yet we expect a different result.

Markets will be up (probably) in January. Then you have one of the greatest short-selling opportunities in history. Take it.

greatest short-selling opportunities

RiR,

Weren't you on here last summer telling us to go long in stocks?

When was your Bull to Bear switch?

September 2.

Ray,

What you said was thoughtful and in my opinion exactly correct. For that reason, it should be completely ignored.

What's the use in slaying the dragon if there is no personal profit? let someone else slay it!

Take the quick profits!, fuck the people!, live for today!, who cares what the children have to endure, we'll be dead!

Go ahead Snipe, figure out a way to blame this mess on the Dems. Not that they aren't complicite, they just didn't plan and lead the march into fraud, waste and collapse. It took the Rethuglicans to lead us into the quicksand. They have never understood that they need buyers, not just a quick buck.

#4 | Posted by nutcase

You keep forgetting who tried to make is bad budget look better by raiding the Social Security Program and oay for his war. LBJ was the king of sleeze.

"You keep forgetting..."

Whereas Sniper keeps forgetting George Bush had the opportunity to turn all that around, but instead blew it on tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war of choice.

damnit, all this doom and disaster cannot happen before my madmax vehicle is up and running!

Lipzoidal

I see it in a positive way. By accumulating gold and silver I cast my vote for an honest monetary system and put pressure in the felons in Washington. A mass rush to gold and silver scares the hell out of them. Once gold takes over, they are finished.

No one can accuse me of failing to warn people. I've been doing it for years on this site. I even have family members who to this day don't want to hear this. I take no pleasure in the suffering of others. But if people refuse to help themselves, I can't help them. That's no reason why I should suffer with them.

Don't listen to the pretend libertarians at Reason. They are a joke!

Whereas Sniper keeps forgetting George Bush had the opportunity to turn all that around, but instead blew it on tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war of choice.

#28 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Two things Obama's promised to keep going. But I'll bet you voted for him anyhow.

Four more years!!

"Two things Obama's promised to keep going"

First, Obama has stated he'll allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire, so you're wrong on that one. Second, Obama has stated he'll try to get us out of Iraq, so you're wrong on that one.

And finally, the difference between the economy Bush inherited and the economy Bush will pass on is stunning. But feel free to pretend they're the same.

But feel free to pretend they're the same.

#33 | Posted by Danforth

The economic woes and war woes and lack of confidence woes do not start until Obama is inaugurated.

Then, by ned, it's gonna be a mess. right now, the fundamentals are strong. thank you bush, for keeping the fundamentals strong.

-wingnuts-

I had a feeling that this article was taken from me in my sleep. To think that anyone can step in and reverse far more than the Bush years worth of screw ups. The Obamaman would indeed have to be "The Magic....". He isn't and in reality no one is. The shit has hit the fan and will fall. How much and where is the question.

A break for some amusement, the Santa Claus Bailout Hearings.

First, Obama has stated he'll allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire, so you're wrong on that one. Second, Obama has stated he'll try to get us out of Iraq, so you're wrong on that one.
* * *

First, they're not due to expire until 2010. That's a long way away, considering during the campaign he said we couldn't afford them at all.
Second, Obama will be Commander-in-Chief. Hello. "He'll try to get us out of Iraq" can be done with a phone call.

And I'll agree that the economy today is weak. But Obama seems to think that keeping Bush's economic ideas around are the best way to fix it. Bush is running up deficits! And Obama promises to double them, AGAIN. Bush is bailing out Wall Street! And Obama voted for it. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy! And Obama is going to keep them. Bush sent us into Iraq on a War of Choice that's costing us $10 billion a month! And Obama will "try" to get us out.

LMAO. Whatever.

What is so funny if it were not so tragic is that the same baffoons that got us into this mess are claiming they are the same ones to get us out of it.

Obama should give everyone a tax holiday making 250k or less a year by deleting payroll taxes for 6 to 10 months.

That would stimulate the economy.

And a hellava better than sending checks to folks on borrowed chinese money for one time check of $500 or $1000.

"considering during the campaign he said we couldn't afford them at all."

Wrong again. Obama never stated he'd rescind them.

""He'll try to get us out of Iraq" can be done with a phone call."

I'm sure you know it'll take more than a phone call to extricate us from Boy George's Excellent Iraqi Adventure. As well as the fact Bush and McCain weren't interested in getting out. So, yet another difference.

"And I'll agree that the economy today is weak."

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

"Bush is bailing out Wall Street! And Obama voted for it. "

Bush drove the ship of state off the cliff. The "bailout" is just a decision to engage the air bags.

"Bush cut taxes on the wealthy! And Obama is going to keep them."

Again, no he's not. He's stated he won't rescind them, but will let them expire.

"And a hellava better than sending checks to folks on borrowed chinese money "

And how, exactly, do you plan to pay for this tax holiday while running deficits if not a loan from the Chinese and/or others?

Wow. Does Danforth have a short memory. Just a couple of months ago the big question was, how is Obama going to pay for tax cuts for 95% of the population by raising taxes on 5%? And his tax increases were going to those with $250k in income, then $150k. Now--not at all.

From the Chicago SunTimes:

"Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security."

* * * *

But that's okay. If Obama can rewrite strategy as he goes, why can't you? Fact is, 2009 is shaping up to be a year in which a whole lot fewer people will be making that kind of money anyhow. What's really amusing, though, is how quickly the liberals have re-lconverted to their borrow-and-spend ways, now that it's Obama who's going to be kiting the checks.

Bush drove the ship of state off the cliff. The "bailout" is just a decision to engage the air bags.
* * *

Even if you believe that, what does the "ship of state" have to do with Wall Street?

I detest McCain, and promised myself in 2000 I would never vote for him. So I voted 3rd party this time. But I was told throughout, if I don't vote for Obama, I'm voting for another Bush term. And they were right. I didn't vote for Obama, and another Bush term is exactly what we got.

"But I was told throughout, if I don't vote for Obama, I'm voting for another Bush term. And they were right. I didn't vote for Obama, and another Bush term is exactly what we got."

See, folks? The Magic-8 Ball works!

RiR

Have you checked for fumes coming from under your residence?

You were all about Bush until it became clear he was an utter moron (which many Americans knew long before). Your ID says it all. The Right was VERY wrong. Deregulation led to a catastrophe.

Obama wouldn't have had to stimulate the economy had Bush and the GOP Congress left regulation as it was in 2000, and borrowed us into the next century with reckless policies.

Fumes. Your problem is unseen, undectable fumes that permeate the air in the Red States.

BARTIROMO: So what about the top marginal rate for ordinary income? Who ought to pay more and who should pay less?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less.

AU -

Could be the Fumes-Magic 8 Ball-Jack Daniels-Super Sized Barbacoa Burrito combo at work. That and not enough sunlight.

This disaster wasn't brought about by the unregulated market, but by the regulated ones. Mortgages are regulated. Commodities markets are regulated. Debt markets are regulated. You can have all the regulations you want, but as long as it's dumbassess who are running the show, you're going to fail anyway.

But if you think more regulation is what's called for, go ahead. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did such a great job overseeing Fannie and Freddie, it's only natural to put them in charge of deciding who should qualify for business loans now. Regulate away!

And I'll keep selling short. We'll see who comes out ahead.

Obama wouldn't have had to stimulate the economy had Bush and the GOP Congress left regulation as it was in 2000, and borrowed us into the next century with reckless policies.
* * * *

Wow. Are you stupid. Ever hear of Sarbanes Oxley? The most comprehensive regulatory overhaul in the history of the capital markets? Bush wanted to rein in the mortgage writers and FNMA and FRE--conservatives wanted them shut down completely. But here we are. And Obama promises more borrowing and spending--but you think that's a GOOD idea, this time. You're hysterical.

Bush has been a disaster. No argument. But everything Obama is doing suggests he's just running things right out of Bush's playbook. Doesn't work that way. Tell ya what. I'll sell short the new Obama economy, and let you know how things are going. Had I to do it over again, I would have gone short the market the day Obama announced his candidacy. Isn't it funny how the rise of Barack Obama was perfectly correlated with the market decline?

Just askin'. We'll see if a whole lot more big-government Democrats on the scene help any.

Who was keeping an eye on bank's books? Who was overseeing all the mortgage companies that sprung up like dandelions?

RiR, you're just way too partisan to ever see the mess the GOP's march towards deregulation caused. It didn't work. Sectors MUST be regulated. If Lincoln S & L didn't teach the stupid ass Republicans that, what would? There was the Depresssion before that - the reason the SEC and other regulatory agencies were created in the first place.

RiR

Are you honestly proposing that with a GOP controlled Congress Bush didn't get everything he wanted rubber stamped.

Man, you're absolutely delusional.

I repeat, you're absolutely delusional.

" Just a couple of months ago the big question was, how is Obama going to pay for tax cuts for 95% of the population by raising taxes on 5%?"

Only to idiots who are slow on comprehension. Specifically, that's not what Obama said, although wingnuts have been barfing that bullshit for months. Reread what was actually claimed, and this time, pay attention.

"What's really amusing, though, is how quickly the liberals have re-converted to their borrow-and-spend ways, now that it's Obama who's going to be kiting the checks."

Almost as amusing as folks who ignored the largest deficits since the dawn of time, now suddenly caring about spending, all because the President has a (D) behind his name. Welcome to the party...you're 8 years late.

"Isn't it funny how the rise of Barack Obama was perfectly correlated with the market decline?"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Nothing George Bush did for 7+ years had any effect, but Obama running for office ruined the economy.

AU-
No, Bush didn't get things rubber stamped. Reps had such a slim majority that folks like Chafee, Snowe, etc, had to be placated. And then hope that all Reps would stick together. Not an easy task.

Perhaps one of Dubya's largest legislative failures was his effort to get his Social Security reform.

I always hated the spending. And I'll hate Obama's spending too.

But we'll see if a whole lot of new big-government Democrats running the show make the economy better. I'm really curious as to why Citigroup bankers would want to make new loans, now knowing that if they make a mistake, Douchebag Dodd will be calling him onto the carpet for wasting taxpayer money. Now that taxpayers are suffering losses on banks' books, courtesy of the Bush/Obama Wall Street bailout, the penalty for making a mistake as a banker now might be a prison term, rather than just losing your job. Therefore, no new loans.

I love it. You pretended to be pissed off when Bush ran a $400 billion deficit. Obama's will be three times that, in 2009. And you don't give a damn. All because the President has a (D) after his name. Enjoy your party.

"No, Bush didn't get things rubber stamped."

Remind us...when was his first veto?

SS Reform was proposed when the Senate was 50/50

Good thing it didn't pass, eh? Stock markets not doing so well.

RiR

Obama and the Democrats didn't create the massive deficits and you know it. Bush was handed surpluses.

Your dishonesty and single minded partisanship are laughable.

"Obama's will be three times that, in 2009."

And you get to pretend it's all Obama's doing. Lucky you.

Nothing George Bush did for 7+ years had any effect, but Obama running for office ruined the economy.

#53 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

George Bush sucked. He's leaving. But his legacy will live on, courtesy of the fact that Obama has helped to rubber-stamp everything Bush has wanted over the past couple of years.

But make my job difficult for a change, and tell me one thing--just one--that Obama will be doing differently. Spending? Nope. Bush is a piker compared to the deficit spending Barack promises. Taxes? Nah--we'll just let Bush's tax cuts expire. Maybe. Iraq? Nope. Wall Street bailouts? No reason to think he'd do differently--he voted for them, and surrounded himself with big Goldman bankers.

Four more years! Yeah!

Your dishonesty and single minded partisanship are laughable.

#58 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Uh huh. I voted Constitution Party. What's laughable is the pretense there's any difference between Republicans and Dems anymore, but that you keep carrying on as if there is.

"tell me one thing--just one--that Obama will be doing differently."

Supreme Court Nominees.

"Taxes? Nah--we'll just let Bush's tax cuts expire."

That's two. Bush/McCain wanted them to be permanent.

"Bush is a piker compared to the deficit spending Barack promises."

And you'll pretend the 18%-20% of revenue it'll take just to service the deficit---more than DOUBLING the burden over one administration---has nothing to do with it.

"Iraq? Nope."

Somebody doesn't know the difference between 16 months and 100 years.

SS Reform was proposed when the Senate was 50/50

Good thing it didn't pass, eh? Stock markets not doing so well.

Of course that wouldn't have been the case when the DOW was approaching 15,000. Not that either matters considering how long it would have taken before a dollar was moved out of SS to the stock market. You do realize we are talking about any increase in benefits decades from now. As well as only about 10% and a cap allowed to be invested. Good point though bringing this up. Your Majority Leader mentioned that today in his disgraceful interview this morning.

The other genius Congressman Hoyer said SCHIP was a top priority in early 2009.

Your dishonesty and single minded partisanship are laughable.

#58 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-01-04 02:53 PM

Number one self-retort of 2009.

Health insurance for kids paid for with a cigarette tax - BAD BAD BAD BAD

-The Right (delusional tailpipe sniffers)

Crispee

If you can honestly say, as a human being who reads, that Bush wasn't handed surpluses, and then the GOP and Bush presided over the largest expansion of federal government and the largest deficits in American history, you need to seek psychiatric help PRONTO!

Anyone with even half a brain knows that to be true.

Blind 'tailpipe sniffing' partisans like you who refuse to take responsibility for your party's irresponsibility are out of your minds.

Obama wouldn't have had to stimulate the economy had Bush and the GOP Congress left regulation as it was in 2000, and borrowed us into the next century with reckless policies.

See Obama spend. Watch economy collapse. It's shocking to see how many think debt spending is the cure debt spending.

As for "deregulation" this country is being run by crooks who rewrote the regulations to suit themselves. Paulson was one of the pioneers and Bush made him Secretary of the Treasury. He promised transparency in return for the $700 billion bailout package to which he reneged. That's because the money went to his friends to keep their own little Ponzi Schemes from being exposed.

This arguing over Democrat verses Republican is fruitless. Both parties are full of crooks.

"Supreme Court Nominees."
You assume there will be any. But fair enough. Obama will have a pick or two that Bush wouldn't have gone for. Probably.

"Bush/McCain wanted them to be permanent."
Yeah. Because we all know that taxes are too LOW, not too high. If only government had more money, the poor bastards! LOL. By the way, isn't it interesting that Obama is keeping all but one of Bush's tax cuts? And he's put off doing away with the top bracket reduction? Funny. He's in 90% agreement with Bush's tax policy.

"And you'll pretend the 18%-20% of revenue it'll take just to service the deficit---more than DOUBLING the burden over one administration---has nothing to do with it."
Point taken. So why make it worse? Oh yeah--he's a Democrat.

"Somebody doesn't know the difference between 16 months and 100 years."
I'll bet you a thousand dollars we're still in Iraq in 17 months. And in 27.

Health insurance for kids paid for with a cigarette tax - BAD BAD BAD BAD

-The Right (delusional tailpipe sniffers)

#65 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-01-04 03:02 PM

As you pretend to care about the upcoming spending spree by the Majority, answer be this Batman. Why should we spend more money on another piggy-back program, when 60% don't even bother to use them? Wouldn't it make more sense to tweek the current failed programs already in place?

SS Reform was proposed when the Senate was 50/50 AU

It may have been 50-50. Regardless, Cheney breaks ties. Of course there is always the senate filibuster looming out there.

Good thing it didn't pass, eh? Stock markets not doing so well. AU

C'mon, AU. It's like the global warming (pro or con) people who squawk every time our temperature is high or low.

SS faces some major, major problems going forward. Much higher taxes, decreasing benefits, raising retirement ages, etc. Much easier to punt that to our kids. He wanted to change things. Didn't happen. So yes, AU & DAN, he didn't get all he wanted.

Do you put your retirement in passbook savings accounts? That's akin to the SS system vs the market in terms of long term results.

Health insurance for kids paid for with a cigarette tax - BAD BAD BAD BAD

-The Right (delusional tailpipe sniffers)

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-01-04 03:02 PM | Reply

Why should the smokers pay for the Children while nonsmokers do not. That is a bunch of shit AU and You know it. Why not punish the beer drinkers??Or the soda drinkers.

Larry

Don't give them any ideas Crispee. We're going to see a lot of tweaking in the months ahead, with a price tag of 12 zeros. But AU will be on here saying GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD.

Why should the smokers pay for the Children while nonsmokers do not. That is a bunch of shit AU and You know it. Why not punish the beer drinkers??Or the soda drinkers.

Larry
* * * *

I'm just guessing, but AU probably drinks beer and soda, but doesn't smoke.

I'm just guessing, but AU probably drinks beer and soda, but doesn't smoke.

Posted by rightisright at 2009-01-04 03:17 PM | Reply

Ahhhhhhhh gotcha

Diet Soda

I'm seriously hypoglycemic. No beer.

Lost your bet.

LOL

"Because we all know that taxes are too LOW, not too high."

We're running the largest deficits since the dawn of time, and your answer, like Bush's, is to CUT taxes?!? Do you follow that financial path in your own life?

"Funny. He's in 90% agreement with Bush's tax policy."

You could just as easily say Bush agreed with 90% of Clinton's tax policy.

"Point taken. So why make it worse? Oh yeah--he's a Democrat."

I'm not a fan of deficit spending. I never have been. But as you've stated in the past, Bush had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix some major problems. Instead, he had a big tax-cut party for his wealthy cronies and started a war of choice. Next, he doubled the debt burden, choking off more and more options. And then he & Paulson came to Congress, after they'd gone off a cliff, asking if they wanted to engage the air bags before impact.

And remind me...after the largest deficit in US history, you voted for Bush a second time, right?

"I'll bet you a thousand dollars we're still in Iraq in 17 months. And in 27."

I'm sure you're right, as it'll take more than a phone call to extricate ourselves. But that doesn't change the fact McCain and Bush wanted us there longer.

Diet Soda

I'm seriously hypoglycemic. No beer.

Lost your bet.

LOL

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-01-04 03:20 PM | Reply

Diet soda is still soda erven though it tastes like shit why not tax that for childrens health??

Larry

We're running the largest deficits since the dawn of time, and your answer, like Bush's, is to CUT taxes?!? Do you follow that financial path in your own life?
* * *

Wait a minute. Are you talking to me? Or Barack?

And you're wrong. Obama picks up the phone and issues the order, and we're leaving Iraq. Just like that. Once Clinton decided we're heading out of Somalia, goodbye. Once Reagan decided no more on Lebanon, we were loading the boats. Commanders in Chief are like that. Somebody needs to tell your boy before he hits the White House. Doesn't seem like he knows that.

"It's shocking to see how many think debt spending is the cure debt spending."

Of course it isn't. Putting money under your mattress is. Heck, even letting the economy, and the country, collapse is better.

Larry

I drink water mostly. Diet Mountain Dew doesn't taste badly at all. I add a few drops of lime juice to it. Tastes good to me.

Since I'm not into sugar (never really was to begin with) I don't notice the difference like a lot of people would.

And remind me...after the largest deficit in US history, you voted for Bush a second time, right?
* * *

Yes. But Kerry wouldn't have been any better on spending. Or worse, to be fair. Which is no compliment to either of them.

I've decided to go third party until somebody shows me why one party is better than the other. Hell--I'd be happy with "different"--I can figure out better for myself.

" So yes, AU & DAN, he didn't get all he wanted."

The SS debacle was because Boy George refused to address reality. He eschewed higher taxes or a later retirement date, both of which (along with reduced payouts) will have to be embraced. Add to that a declining birth rate, and you have the reason not a single respected economist signed on to Bush's plan. The more Bush did his dog-and-pony show for the faithful, the further the support dropped. And I defy anyone to explain the "payback" concept, wherein if your investments did too well, you'd be sending the government a check each month.

"Do you put your retirement in passbook savings accounts? That's akin to the SS system vs the market in terms of long term results."

The difference being the returns on passbook savings are reliable, and the net value always goes up. It also undermines your argument when the passbook savings folks are the only ones who did okay in 2008.

We'll have troops in Iraq, but not combat troops in 16 months - just like Obama said.

RiR only thinks about his clients interests. He doesn't care about the middle class.

The 39% tax rate will sunset back into existence either way.

"But Kerry wouldn't have been any better on spending."

We might not be wasting billions every week in Iraq.

"Are you talking to me? Or Barack?"

Both. I disagree with his plan to cut taxes for ANYONE while we're running the largest deficits since the dawn of time.

"He wanted to change things (Social Security)."

Good intentions pave the way to hell. You need good suggestions, not good intentions.

"That's akin to the SS system vs the market in terms of long term results."

Unless you wanted to retire in a year like this one. Or did retire in the last few years.

"The difference being the returns on passbook savings are reliable, and the net value always goes up. It also undermines your argument when the passbook savings folks are the only ones who did okay in 2008." - DAN

Sure, one year is lower. But you can't serious in arguing you'd be better off putting your money in a passbook savings account vs the market. Are you?

FYI-
Regardless, you'd STILL be better off with the market vs SS.

"Obama picks up the phone and issues the order, and we're leaving Iraq. Just like that."

Except with all of the logistics involved, we'd still have a presence there 27 months from now.

Only if the Commander in Chief wants one.

Come on. Is there a SINGLE campaign promise that Obama will be keeping to liberals? Just ONE? I would think that would have most of you guys pissed off. I guess you don't mind eating garbage, as long as the head chef is a Dem.

"you'd STILL be better off with the market vs SS."

And yet those people would disagree with you, probably vehemently. Since in one case they could retire, in the other they can't.

And how, exactly, do you plan to pay for this tax holiday while running deficits if not a loan from the Chinese and/or others?

#40 | Posted by Danforth

Dan--simple--

The gov't doesn't collect payroll taxes off payroll from folks making 250k or less a year.

They get to keep their money that they earned.

--------

Both parties are corrupt--both parties created this mess. Started with Clinton and then Bush to give every American a home loan whether they could afford it or not.

Now the assholes want to tell us they can solve the problems--

Now who is being delusional?

"But you can't serious in arguing you'd be better off putting your money in a passbook savings account vs the market. Are you?"

Historically, there have been times where the passbook beat the market. 1929-1941, and 2008-???, for example.

But no, I don't believe a passbook is a better long-term investment. Still, look where we'd be if Bush got his way...any way you slice it, we'd be in an even deeper mess.

FYI-
Regardless, you'd STILL be better off with the market vs SS.

Posted by OohRah at 2009-01-04 03:34 PM | Reply

You're fucking crazy. There is no guarantee with the Stock Market compared to Social Security. Unfuckingbelievable. Did You sleep through 2008 OohRah?? It sure seems like it. Oh and You aren't paid a percentage of what You have invested into Social Security. (They take Your last either 20 quarters or 20 Years wages can't remember which)and pay You a percentage of Your highest wage. Besides the fact if You have an opt out for payees You are just reducing the amount paid into social security to fund those who are drawing on social security now. Nutzoid is all I can say.

Larry

RiR

Since there are fewer "Liberals" than NeoCons, why don't you tell US?

"Liberals" is only a word Rush and his ilk use to fire up the masses.

Liberalism died with the 60's.

"But you can't serious in arguing you'd be better off putting your money in a passbook savings account vs the market. Are you?"

The faith people have in the "market" is really touching. Of course, there is a reason fund companies put a disclaimer in their ads, that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Plus, if you buy Ray's theory, the market's gonna collapse - where will your money (in the market) be then?

And the SS plan was for folks to still be guaranteed the 3% they earned regardless of the market.

But anything over that would belong to the person invested.

"And yet those people would disagree with you, probably vehemently. Since in one case they could retire, in the other they can't." - FYI

I see your point. Though with some education, if for example they'd see a model showing the market vs their SS, they could see they're way ahead... despite this past year or two.

They'd have been much worse off with just their SS.

"Dan--simple--The gov't doesn't collect payroll taxes off payroll from folks making 250k or less a year. They get to keep their money that they earned."

You're right...you're simple.

We currently spend every dime that comes into SS and replace it with an IOU. You still haven't answered how the government will make up the revenue it's already committed to spend, if not by a loan from a foreign entity. If your "idea" results in $100 billion in less revenue, it has to be made up somewhere, and since we're running deficits, that means a foreign loan.

SS the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.

And it will eventually fail.

"anything over that would belong to the person invested."

Not true. There was a formula whereby if your investments did TOO well, that money belonged to the government.

Why does the gov't have to spend a trillion dollars as proposed by Obama?

Why not let people stimulate the economy with their own dollars.

Every dollar that the gov't spends they stole from the people.

And I agree--either they borrow, tax or inflate.

I don't know what a neocon is. But I know what Kennedy, Dodd, Shumer, Clinton (Hillary) and Obama are. Liberals. Liberals who are in bed with Wall Street, and who want to raise my taxes for the rest of my life to help their friends at Goldman, Merrill, and Citi.

And as long as that's true, the only trade is to sell.

"to help their friends at Goldman, Merrill, and Citi. "

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Because the Dems went to Paulson and Bush with the bailout idea, not the other way around.

I second that emotion DANFORTH

In bed with Wall Street.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

If the GOP had it's way the minimum wage would still be $2.10

Oh, your poooooooooooor clients (who'll still be stuck where you're trying to move away from.

Lest we forget Bush thought the raise for our troops in Iraq was 'too much'.

I'm gonna really enjoy watching the right wing nuts spit on their monitors the next 4 years. REALLY !!!

"Though with some education, if for example they'd see a model showing the market vs their SS, they could see they're way ahead..."

No, they could see the market was ahead. They would not see that of themselves, because they would have to match the market. Very few people can. Hell, very few money fund managers match the S&P. Most people would stand a much better chance of losing all of their money.

AU--the ones who will be spitting are on the left of center side.

Obama will over spend--if a trillion isn't enough--how about 2 trillion?

And they won't create jobs that are getting laid off.

Oh--you'll have plenty of union jobs for roads and bridges--but they will hoard it and take 300% longer to complete the project and be over budget.

"Every dollar that the gov't spends they stole from the people."

Posted by someone who drives on manicured streets, breathes clean air, eats inspected meat, and drinks potable water.

Probably calls the Police and Fire Departments if needed, too.

"I don't know what a neocon is." - RiR

I could swear we had this discussion about neocons before and I explained it to you. I hope you havea better memory when it comes to your job. Or are you one of those who ignores and forgets whatever isn't to your liking?

Because the Dems went to Paulson and Bush with the bailout idea, not the other way around.

#103 | Posted by Danforth

That Paulson had drawn up months before, but didn't see fit to share with anyone outside the inner circle. Why, just imagine if Congress had had months to work out some plans, rather than days before the house came crashing down.

I am always amazed by the idiocy of the right in America.

Thank God there are prudent, pragmatic, principled Republicans left in this country. Most of my Republican friends voted for Obama. They're quite patriotic and couldn't see handing another 4 years to the party that's gotten us in a hell of a mess singlehandedly.

AU--BOTH PARTIES CREATED THIS MESS!!!

Hello Pittsburgh!

"BOTH PARTIES CREATED THIS MESS!!!"

That's about all the responsibility we're ever going to get from "the party of responsibility".

That Paulson had drawn up months before, but didn't see fit to share with anyone outside the inner circle. Why, just imagine if Congress had had months to work out some plans, rather than days before the house came crashing down.

I am always amazed by the idiocy of the right in America.

Just imagine? The Dems have done what in the last 36 months as Majority? We still have no hearings on fannie/freddie. Why is that? How many months do you propose the Majority party needs before they bear any responsibility?

"The Dems have done what in the last 36 months as Majority? "

First, stop using Vernon's calculator.

Second, tell the civics class what happens when the minority party more than doubles, and nearly triples, the all-time record for filibusters.

"The Dems have done what in the last 36 months as Majority?"

36 months already? Wow, time does fly when you're having fun!

"The Dems have done what in the last 36 months as Majority? "

First, stop using Vernon's calculator.

Self-penalty box. Two minutes for cross-checking.

Second, tell the civics class what happens when the minority party more than doubles, and nearly triples, the all-time record for filibusters.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-01-04 04:02 PM

How would you like the question asked Judge? What have they done as the Majority Party since JAN 2007? Or do they have ZERO responsibilty for the current financial mess?

I guess time flies when we're having fun.

Assuming the proper time frame, what HAVE the Dems accomplished? Beyond minimum wage... anything significant regarding the war, which was the big issue in 2006? Cut spending? Anything?

The answer is that it's difficult when you only hold a razor thin majority. Same issue the Reps had for years.

"Self-penalty box. Two minutes for cross-checking."

And for you, five minutes for NOT checking. You do realize it's less than 24 months, yes?

"What have they done as the Majority Party since JAN 2007?"

Had to deal with an all-time record number of filibusters. Do you have any idea how governance works? Give me 40+ Senators and a President with a veto pen, and let's see what you can do---provided I get to blame you for my refusal to close debate.

"Or do they have ZERO responsibilty for the current financial mess?"

There hasn't been a single banking or financial bill written by the Dems in over a decade. In committees, the minority is lucky if they get control over 10% of the wording. If the Republicans wrote 90% of the law, they deserve 90% of the credit. Or blame, in this case.

"The answer is that it's difficult when you only hold a razor thin majority. Same issue the Reps had for years."

If that's the attitude the Republicans have towards their 6 years of total control, I'm gonna forsake my usual third party voting and start voting Dem.

"If that's the attitude the Republicans have towards their 6 years of total control, I'm gonna forsake my usual third party voting and start voting Dem." - FYI

That's reality, my friend. When you have a razor thin majority and your party has liberal senators, you can't pass heavy-handed legislation because you can't count on their votes.

Or do you have a different explanation? I'm just being real. Politics is more than just one person or one opinion.

"Self-penalty box. Two minutes for cross-checking."

And for you, five minutes for NOT checking. You do realize it's less than 24 months, yes?

I thought the self-penalty post explained my fuck up. Yes?

There hasn't been a single banking or financial bill written by the Dems in over a decade. In committees, the minority is lucky if they get control over 10% of the wording. If the Republicans wrote 90% of the law, they deserve 90% of the credit. Or blame, in this case.

How about hearings why there was this meltdown? Has the Majority Party done its job with their oversight obligations? Have they given any indication they can fix this?

"How about hearings why there was this meltdown?"

Both parties have been busy with elections and transitions. Not a good reason, though.

"Has the Majority Party done its job with their oversight obligations?"

No, not at all. But maybe they're waiting until Congress and the WH get a little friendlier. But again, not a good enough reason.

"Have they given any indication they can fix this?"

They're pretending, but I don't hold out much hope.

"Or do you have a different explanation?" - Oohrah

Yeah, I tend to favor the one espoused by Danforth. Since it seems to blend in with my knowledge of how government works.

"This is a problem of Washington verses the people."

Yeah, we need a revolution in this country. Collapse the economy, put millions of people out of work, no stability anywhere, have shooting battles everywhere. Should be great fun.

"Yeah, I tend to favor the one espoused by Danforth. Since it seems to blend in with my knowledge of how government works." - FYI

???
In your own words, what?

Do you deny my assertation that with razor thin majorities it's virtually impossible to pass any significant legislation when you have liberal senators?

Senators aren't like minimum wage employees who can be bullied at our whim. They seek concessions for their vote. And if their state is liberal (Rhode Island, for example) you can bet the senator will have major heartburn backing a strict conservative agenda.

"In your own words, what?" - Oohrah

The Repubs _had_ a majority. And the presidency. If they really wanted something to pass, they could do so. If they really wanted something to fail, they could do so. They did pass things. They obviously didn't believe very much in the things they supposedly wanted to pass but didn't. In the corporate world, the stance that you promulgate would get me a lashing, if not fired, if I tried it.

Why would I want to vote Repub, when they get power then hide behind nuance? Sounds like total lack of responsibility to me.

"... with razor thin majorities it's virtually impossible to pass any significant legislation ..." - Oohrah

Yep, I do deny it. Try that in the corporate world. My experience has been that management would consider you inept. A majority is exactly that, a majority. Huge step towards achieving your goal. Toss in a little effort (yeah, I know, work) and viola.

Because the Dems went to Paulson and Bush with the bailout idea, not the other way around.

#103 | Posted by Danforth

* * * *

It was the other way around. Bush knew the Republicans wouldn't vote for it, but that the Dems would.

Four more years!

I could swear we had this discussion about neocons before and I explained it to you. I hope you havea better memory when it comes to your job. Or are you one of those who ignores and forgets whatever isn't to your liking?

#108 | Posted by fyi
* * * *

Uh huh. I guess a neocon is someone who supported the Iraq war or something. Which means that Hillary and Biden and Kerry and Lieberman are neocons. Along with Bush and Rumsfeld. And about 3/4ths of the American public.

And if everyone is a neocon, nobody is. Try again.

Then again, don't. I don't care. Just explain why Obama was right about Iraq all along, in being opposed to it. But he's also right about it now that he won't be pulling the troops out any differently than Bush was.

I still don't have the operational definition of a neocon. But I know a partisan shill when I see one. Just for your information.

Toss in a little effort (yeah, I know, work) and viola.

#129 | Posted by fyi
* * *

I don't know how to play the viola.

"I don't know how to play the viola."

You don't have to. All you have to do is toss it in.

Easier that way.

" Just explain why Obama was right about Iraq all along, in being opposed to it. But he's also right about it now that he won't be pulling the troops out any differently than Bush was."

Well that's easy enough: Bush adopted Obama's plan.

"And if everyone is a neocon, nobody is. Try again."

Wow, you really are thickheaded. Nope won't try again, you are locked in cement. Nuance is _not_ your strong suit.

"I still don't have the operational definition of a neocon. But I know a partisan shill when I see one."

Operational definitions are in many places. Hell, even Jonah Goldberg offered one. But that's RiR in action, see what you want to see, ignore what isn't convenient.

"I don't know how to play the viola."

Then try the air-viola.

Nuance is _not_ your strong suit.
* * * *

I know. I kinda like the black-and-white world. For example, if someone says he's going to raise taxes on the rich, withdraw troops from Iraq, balance the budget, and put windfall profits taxes on energy companies, I believe him. Then when he wraps up the nomination then suddenly reverses his position on all those things, I just assume he was lying all along. You know, kinda like when my kid does it.

But you're different. If the guy who does those things is a Democrat, it's "nuance". Oh well. You live your life, and I'll live mine.

Four more years, guys. Hope you enjoyed the last four.

"But you're different. If the guy who does those things is a Democrat, it's "nuance"."

Really? Where exactly did I say that? Or are you in the strawman part of your usual posting cycle?

Among lefties, nuance is a virtue. That's why Bush was belittled for it, and Kerry celebrated. In my book, nuance is another word for confused, or "let's make things up as we go along". Which is what Obama is doing.

And I agree. It's not my strong suit. My ex-wife would agree with you. She's a Dem too.

"Among lefties, nuance is a virtue."

Not the ones I used to debate. But then, these days every left of Attila is a "leftie", so I guess that statement is true.

"In my book, nuance is another word for confused"

No need to belabour the obvious.

"Among lefties, nuance is a virtue."

"Is milk good or bad for you?"

(pause)

"I rest my case." - Lewis Black

Hans

"In my book, nuance is another word for confused..."

From the US point of view, are the Mujahideen the good guys or the bad guys?

Hans

Okay, I just looked it up. And neocons included Truman, Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Leo Strauss, Jean Kirkpatrick, and Dick Cheney. They opposed leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, just like I did. But they're all for invasions without a declaration of war, which I oppose. However, a majority of Democratic Congressmen voted for exactly that in our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

So was I a neocon for saying we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991? Or am I not one for saying we shouldn't put any boots on the ground anywhere without a formal declaration of war? You know, like the Constitution says?

Ah, who cares. Even Obama's a neocon now. We'll have to change the name, of course.

"So was I a neocon for saying we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991? Or am I not one for saying we shouldn't put any boots on the ground anywhere without a formal declaration of war?"

And they said you didn't do nuance. ;0)

Hans

LOL. Fair enough Hans. So when Obama says we can't afford Bush's tax cuts, then says we can't afford to scrap them yet, is that nuance?

How about when he promises to withdraw all troops from Iraq, and criticizes Clinton for not doing so, then changes his mind? How about on offshore oil drilling, until prices hit all-time highs, when he reversed himself? Jumpin' Jeremiah Wright, "I can no longer disavow him, than I can a member of my own family" . . . we all know what happened there. And so on.

Maybe it's nuance. Maybe it's having no principles at all. Which is what I think. Barack Obama believes he should be president. Everything else is negotiable.

Four more years. Hope nobody else minds.

Cheney in 1994 stated all the reasons we shouldn't have invaded with 1/5th the number of forces we ended up invading with in 2003.

It's all on video.

Congress was shown a "White Paper" scrubed of dissenting opinion, and reworded in such a way as to make prepositions absolutes.

No one imagined Bush would kick ou tthe UN Inspectors - who were pleading for time having found no WMD evidence. The reason Bush kicked them out. He was bound and determined to invade no matter what. You know it. I know it. Bush knew it. Cheney knew it.

"...Dick Cheney. They opposed leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991"

Actually:

"Maybe it's nuance. Maybe it's having no principles at all."

Actually, amoung Republicans nuance is becoming the only silver lining these days. The "party of personal responsibility" has evolved into the party which claims "there's plenty enough blame to go around" (as far as the current economic situation is concerned). Doubt that? Try to find one Republican who claims (or claimed) that there was plenty enough blame to go around regarding the economic situation circa 1978-1981.

Nuance.

Hans

"For example, if someone says he's going to raise taxes on the rich, withdraw troops from Iraq, balance the budget, and put windfall profits taxes on energy companies, I believe him."

First, I've been against the WPT from the beginning. It was a stupid idea, and I said so at the outset. Other than that...

Taxes will be raised on the rich.
Troops will be withdrawn from Iraq.

And Obama never claimed he would balance the budget. That was McCain, who then reversed himself.

Who needs nuance when they don't do fact?

Danforth,
"The difference being the returns on passbook savings are reliable, and the net value always goes up. It also undermines your argument when the passbook savings folks are the only ones who did okay in 2008."

You have done a superb job of proving how many BILLIONS of dollars we waste upon our educational system every year.

Who else could say that earning ONE percent or less on passbook savings makes a person better off when the inflation rate for the year was 4.8% according to the SSA and that number is ALWAYS a lowball figure in order to allow the Feds to keep a few more of our dollars to spend on usless projects?

But for the sake of simplicity for all of you American Educated folks of today, lets say you had $10,000 in your passbook savings account on Jan 1, 2008.

Applying the normal passbook interest amount of .71% compounded daily, on Jan 1, 2009 it will have grown to $10,071.

BUT, since the cost of living will have increased by 4.8% MINIMUM, that $10,071 will have ACTUALLY SHRUNK to $9,017.23.

In the whole nation, not ONE SINGLE bank or S&L paid higher than 3.92% (Dollar Direct in NY with a $1,000 minimum balace required).
If you search the nation you will find a handful paying 3.4% (some requiring a $10,000 min bal) and a few more around 2.5-2.7%.
NOT ONE paid enough to match inflation so every one would result in a net LOSS of money to anyone saving money in their institutions.

So if you really believe that seeing your $10,000 passbook account shrink to a REAL ACTUAL VALUE of $9,017.23 and believe that this makes you better off than anyioone else then enjoy it.

Back in the old days when I went to school, growth meant that your money was worth more, not less. But then again, we also didn't believe that raising the Federal Taxes on fuel was cutting taxes or that raising the bus, EL and subway fares by $.50-.75 PER TRIP was helping poor people, that raising parking meter charges to double or triple what they were in 2008 would benefit city businesses and restaurants, etc.

Using the old adage of "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.", there are people who have said this somewhat better:

Ben Franklin said "If a man could have HALF HIS WISHES, he would DOUBLE HIS TROUBLES"

Anatole France said "Beware, my Lord!
Beware lest stern Heaven HATE you enough to HEAR YOUR PRAYERS!"

and Mother Teresa said "More tears are shed over ANSWERED prayers than over UNANSWERED prayers!"

Any one of these would be an appropriate motto for the OBAMAROBOTS and The Messiah's Administration.

"Already making excuses for a failed Obama Presidency.
#16 | Posted by cabo_vato at 2009-01-03 08:00 PM"

Some here are already blaming the current situation on Mr. Obama, even though neither he (nor the new Congress) has been sworn in yet.

It appears the extent of your contribution is to complain that some are pointing out that the solution will not happen immediately.

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe your comprehension of the situation.

"Clueless doesn't even begin to describe your comprehension of the situation."

Trueblue, you're being quite charitable.

Must be the season.

Happy New Year.

Hans

"You have done a superb job of proving how many BILLIONS of dollars we waste upon our educational system every year. Who else could say that earning ONE percent or less on passbook savings makes a person better off "

I never said that. And speaking of the educational system, you should ask for your money back from whomever taught you reading comprehension.

Applying the normal passbook interest amount of .71% compounded daily, on Jan 1, 2009 it will have grown to $10,071.
BUT, since the cost of living will have increased by 4.8% MINIMUM, that $10,071 will have ACTUALLY SHRUNK to $9,017.23."

You're arguing against a point I wasn't making.

But using your example, if you had $10,000 at the start of the year, and invested in the DJIA, you'd now have $6620. That was my comparison. $6620 vs $10,071, with inflation affecting each the same.

Back atcha, Hans.

Personally tho', I'm holding out for the "New Year" that begins January 20. />

But using your example, if you had $10,000 at the start of the year, and invested in the DJIA, you'd now have $6620. That was my comparison. $6620 vs $10,071, with inflation affecting each the same.

#152 | Posted by Danforth

However, the DJIA is trading at its "real" value. Not the over-inflated value you've been seeing over the last 10 years.

"However, the DJIA is trading at its "real" value. "

What does that have to do with the comparisons of the Dow over the past year versus a passbook?!?

"In my book, nuance is another word for confused"

or....simplistic is a synonym for libertarian.

Danforth,
Ah, but that wasn't your argument at all. You stated that passbook folkss were "THE ONLY ONES WHO DID OKAY IN 2008", NOT that they did OKAY in comparison to DJIA investors.

In addition, you are using the DJIA and how many investors make an investment in the entire DJIA? Very few, I would venture to say. Most individuals invest in one or two DJIA companies and even serious traders invest in a few dozen.

In addition, if all companies in the DJIA dropped a total of about 34% I would be in 7th heaven.

Why would I be overjoyed? Simply because unlike passbook savings, a smart investor can make money if stocks go DOWN in value as well as when they go UP in value because if you know what you are doing you would SHORT stocks that you believe are going to go down in value.

I can say truthfully that I have NEVER lost a dime in stock market trading. In fact every stock transaction I have ever made was at a profit far above the inflation rate. Why? Because I only traded in stocks of companies that I knew all about and therefore knew when to buy LONG and when to buy SHORT, as well as when to dump them as well.

These are things that you can't do with passbook savings.

You see, you missed the point of stock trading entirely. That is that stocks go up, stocks go down. You just need to know the right time for those events to happen.

The Big Three automakers are a classic example of that. Do you need to have it posted in neon lights that they were going to plunge badly in 2008? Only if you lived on a deserted island for the past 20 years.

If you would have SHORTed 1000 shares of GM on 1/7/08 at 23.10, you would have changed your $23,100 plus commissions into $43,000 minus comm on 12/31/08, not adjusted for inflation.

That is a ROI of 86.15%.

For FORD you would have paid $6,210 on 1/7/08 and it would have grown to $10,210 by 12/31/08, a ROI of 64.4%.

Since Chrysler is privately held you couldn't get in on that gravey train.

But the point is that the DJIA is NOT the measure of how much someone can make in the stock market since you can LONG or SHORT stocks, thus you can get just as rich (or poor, if you make stupid choices) when the DJIA is falling as when it is rising.

It is just that it takes more money to make money SHORTing stocks than LONGing since you have to pay the current price and will hopefully make back your investment as the stock falls. When you LONG a stock, you make money as it rises in value so you need less money to make money.

Of course you can MARGIN a stock, paying less than full value but that is very dangerous since if you are SHORTing the stock and it goes up (which any stock can do on daily trading), a margin call will require you to pay in more money to maintian the margin percentage. Obviously if the stock shoots up, you can be destroyed by margin calls.

Thats the stock market lesson for today kiddies, now go play in the sandbox...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi's proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office. Pelosi's proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America's governing legislative process

Can't lead to anything good. The trye NAZI's are taking over my friends... Bitch all you want about Bush.