Has Obamanomics Vanquished Reaganomics?

NO

but its going to do a real number on the american way of life and small business..

but alas...those are things that are just too antiquateed and 'small town' to worry about any more. we just dont have time.
WEVE GOT BABIES TO KILL
weve got corporations to rape
weve got mom and pop companies all over the country to TAX THE SHIT OUT OF ...and then complain about walmart driving them out of business instead of the socialist government taxing them out of business.

so LETS GET CRACKIN BOYS AND GIRLS>

antiquateed SHIT>>what in the hell is this?

antiquated.

No-it hasn't-not yet anyway.
And when successful-it'll be the best thing to EVER happen in this country.

antiquateed SHIT>>what in the hell is this?
antiquated.

Pretty funny and inconsequential place to start correcting where you're wrong.

A better place would have been with your first word!

NO
so you dont think it has replaced reaganomics

hhhm I thought you would have been on the other team from this one.

NO
so you dont think it has replaced reaganomics
hhhm I thought you would have been on the other team from this one.

You still don't get it how, well, antiquated of you.

Depends-if it succeeds, yes. If it fails, probably anyways. There would have to be yet another economic policy to replace it and reaganomics if both fail. And Reaganomics already has.

Maybe Jindalnomics-where everything is valued in bead necklaces...

It's going to be hard to replace Reaganomics. It has the advantage of being as simplistic as a nursery rhyme. It goes something like: "reduce taxes, shrink government, la la la." And as long as you can keep Americans from thinking while pouring on the propaganda you've got it made. Unfortunately for repugs things haven't been quite so simple lately. What with a near depression going on people are starting to think that given the record of the last 8 years maybe this nursery rhyme doesn't work that well. Maybe the world is not as simple as this. The next thing you know Americans will start taking a closer look at the Scandinavian countries. They might even ask themselves if societies that exist for all their citizens are really as bad as they've been told.

Let's hope people in this country open their eyes and take a look for themselves.

It's still deficit spending. Only with Obamanomics, it's on a scale never before imagined. The only thing Obamanomics is going to vanquish is the federal government as we know it.

Reaganomics destroyed itself. Trickle down was the largest pyramid scheme ever invented. It's time to repeal both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts for the rich and greedy.

And when successful-it'll be the best thing to EVER happen in this country.

#3 | Posted by frankf55

That is a huge IF!!!

Can someone show me a country that is a sucusfull socalism? Name one. Lets start with russia and then move on to cuba.

The net effect of Reagan's policies meant that each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners.

Obamanomics is hardly defined yet, except it is stone cold clear that no one wants to expose the underlying causes of the current crisis. That wouldn't serve the top 1 percent.

The net effect of Reagan's policies meant that each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners.

Obamanomics is hardly defined yet, except it is stone cold clear that no one wants to expose the underlying causes of the current crisis. That wouldn't serve the top 1 percent.

When carter left office the top tax bracket was 70%, was that fair?

When carter left office, estate taxes of 45% kicked in for anything over 55,000 bucks. Was that fair??

Ask nasty pelosi, the rich don't pay taxes like we do. They get tax attorney(s) and run circles around the tax man. Nasty paid 19% tax last year. Is that fair???

If you don't like trickle down wealth why not try trickle up poverty.

Can someone show me a country that is a sucusfull socalism?

Britain, Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, germany, Dubai, saudi arabia, Europe in general. Japan, Korea (south).

I'm assuming you do have a clue that democratic socialism, which already exists in America and has for decades is the primary economic model for the world. Or has Rush convinced you the only choice is between godless communism ( and of course you do realize there is a vast difference between socialsim and capitalism)and walking in God's Light dog eat dog free market capitalism?

DTW, you are so full of shit it isn't even funny. Why does the "right" have such an allergy to fact?

Income taxes:

Hey yav you were right I was wrong. It was $175K in carter's last year. It was ronnie that pushed it to 600K in tiers....

If you don't like trickle down wealth why not try trickle up poverty.

#16 | Posted by noah

We're in the throes of "trickle up poverty" right now that was touted as "trickle down" economics.

Can someone show me a country that is a sucusfull socalism? Name one. Lets start with russia and then move on to cuba.

#12 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Why not start with "sucusfull"?

Raising taxes on those rich people who own the companies and employ American workers makes sense to some. But I wonder if you make it more expensive to make money in this country, do the companies take the hit to their bottom line, or do they hire less people, and or possibley just go some where else? Why is it that the top 10% of wage earners pay half the taxes in this country when the bottom 40% get off paying no federal income tax? Shouldn't all Americans pay thier share for this country? Is this the two Americas we always hear about, Tax payers and freeloaders?

But I wonder if you make it more expensive to make money in this country, do the companies take the hit to their bottom line, or do they hire less people, and or possibley just go some where else?

Since they'll never take a hit on their bottom line, they will either hire fewer people or take their business to a country where it can be done more cheaply. Then the very people who wanted the higher corporate taxes whine about American jobs being lost or going overseas.

Go figure.

they will either hire fewer people or take their business to a country where it can be done more cheaply. Then the very people who wanted the higher corporate taxes whine about American jobs being lost or going overseas.

Because that never happened under Reaganomics, did it?

Bush's tax cuts sure didn't do anything to stop the move to slave-labor countries.

Bush's tax cuts sure didn't do anything to stop the move to slave-labor countries.

I didn't say that the only reason jobs would move overseas were because of higher corporate taxes. That is certainly one of them and if you disagree, please provide a debatable reason instead of deflecting to Reagan.

When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' Matthew 20:8-15

Ahhh yes, ENVY is at the root of all the gripers here. "It's just not fair that someone should get more than I get, so let's stick it to 'em and call it justice."

Any of you pathetic whinning bastards ever increase your standard of living by whinning? Is your incessant bitching and griping working for ya'?

fuck you theonebs--you are full of shit--so sayeth the lord

I don't think there is a winning economic policy. Free market capitalism is probably the best idea overall, but when the system is deregulated to the point of becoming a ponzi scheme, everybody loses except the grifters. When the gov't taxes the shit out of the jobmakers, everybody loses. At this point I don't think it even matters. Obamanomics just creates less people to be pissed off at.

I'm assuming you do have a clue that democratic socialism, which already exists in America and has for decades is the primary economic model for the world.
#17 | Posted by northguy3

um, the u.s. is a consitutional republic. some may forget we have a constitution, & balanced powers, but that is the way we were set up. socialism? I didn't see that word in the constitution. also, we have a highly regulated financial system so stop with the 'free market ruined us' crap - we aren't operating under one. but what does it matter when the regulators are asleep at the wheel or in collusion?

"Raising taxes on those rich people who own the companies and employ American workers makes sense to some."

They will only be raising taxes on the portion of their income over $250.000. So, in reality, most will decide to plow profits exceeding that amount back into the business rather than pay additional income tax on it. Therefore the real effect of the tax increase will be increased investment into their businesses often meaning additional employees.
The surest wat to encourage business owners to decrease the number of employees is to reduce taxes and take away an incentive to plow money back into the company. Oh, and then let them take that additional profit and pump it into the stock market to take advantage of even lower capital gains taxes and you get lower revenues for the nation and fewer jobs too.

Obama's BS is another big house of cards. Only a libtard the likes of whom populate this board can believe that you can spend all this money without raising taxes on every American. In fact, if you took every penny of taxable income of every American making $75,000 or more, you could manage this spending without borrowing.

It's a disaster. The markets know it; the world's lenders and bonds buyers know it. There will either be massive new tax increases, or runaway inflation. Keep selling. He's the worst president ever, only a month into the job.

Worst President ever? Well, that remains to be seen. However, he's certainly headed in that direction. If he thinks he can tax this nation into prosperity, he's got a rude awakening coming. His spread the wealth policies are fastly becoming very irritating to many of us.

Reagan didn't entirely practice Reaganomics. He certainly didn't shrink the size of government by any amount that matters. In fact, I believe that Clinton shrank it more that he did. No matter what indoctrinated socialist dems will tell you, the solution to our country's financial problems is to cut government, cut the deficit, and give Americans and businesses (especially small ones) more spendable income. I will believe in Ron Paul's and Peter Schiff's economic advice over Reagan and Obama any day.

His spread the wealth policies are fastly becoming very irritating to many of us.

That "many" keeps getting smaller.

Fastly becoming? You loved the redistribution of wealth upward for all the good that did America. The GOP voted almost unanimously against tax breaks for 95% of working Americans. Now you're "fastly becoming" irritated. Do you realize that validates everything Democrats and Independents have said about the GOP?

Lets not forget "He's a Communist!"

DIdn't work during the campaign. Didn't work after the inauguration. It's not working now.

Find a message that resonates with the majority of Americans and your party might become relevant again.

I'd suggest that this time you root that message in reality.

I like this quote from George Celente.

Meanwhile, back on the planet, in the midst of a global economic crisis, the public continues to pin its hopes on a President, Senators and Congressmen willingly participating in such obviously orchestrated buffoonery. How is this even possible? How is such behavior tolerated? Why would anyone look up to these people?

In one sense it is understandable: President Obama's big show was just another typical political performance. From the excesses of Democratic and Republican nominating conventions, to photo ops of candidates sitting on bales of hay pretending they're just plain folks, to staging whistle stops from vintage trains dragged out of storage especially for the occasion, to contrived Town Hall meetings, to the slick and vicious marketing campaigns ... the public has come to accept such antics as "normal."

These political rituals, carefully staged, time-tested and proven, create an illusion of superiority. President Obama made the distinction clear in Tuesday's speech: "I have come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women of this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here."

"Distinguished?" Distinguished for what? Having the skills to do whatever they have to do -- no matter how ruthless or degrading -- to win elections? Yet, the honorific is accepted without question while the implicit patronization of the citizenry slips by unperceived. They are "distinguished" and the rest are merely the "men and women who sent them there."

Con Game
This is a confidence game. The elaborate staging is designed to inspire the nation's people with "confidence" that their distinguished leaders have the skills to save them from an economic disaster that both political parties were instrumental in creating.

Maybe Jindalnomics-where everything is valued in bead necklaces...

#7 | Posted by northguy3

what a prejudiced stereotype.........

at least you could have made it funny...

Obama is going to erase the middle class with his policies.

"Obama is going to erase the middle class with his policies...."

Yeah, sure. The middle class was growing exponentially prior to January.

What strange people.

of course he is

and people all day on news shows have been talking about how this is what he campaigned on and that the people of the nation voted yes meaning that he is doing just what the majority wants..

of course when a man named joe in ohio got him to preview this, they made sure to destroy him.......
I really believe this is a fundamental difference.
I want my party to lift up the middle class, not drag down the upper class to make it better for us....
but thats not the liberal way...they have to have victims to keep thier power and what better way than to make ALL of us victims...

The middle class is hoping for, and needing, action. Something more than a few assholes saying they don't have money because they're not bright or hard-working.

Yeah, sure. The middle class was growing exponentially prior to January.

I don't know if obama will erase the middle class or not, but I do know it is illogical to assume that he won't based on what happened before January

I'm sorry, but all this bitching and whining ignores the obvious point that there was little or no evidence the Republican Party gave a rat's ass about the middle class before they lost this last election.

I've had not a few of you people tell me is perfectly, perfectly fine that American workers eventually earn no more than Chinese workers.

You're either for us, or you're against us, to coin a phrase. At the moment not a few of you are just hypocrites.

"I know it's illogical to assume he won't based on what happened before January...."

That's fine, Goatman. Now, what was it that WAS happening before January? To the middle class, I mean? You remember them?

That's fine, Goatman. Now, what was it that WAS happening before January? To the middle class, I mean? You remember them?

Yes. But what does this have to do with my pointing out your logical fallacy?

You're deflecting because you're afraid to concede an obvious point. That's sophistry, another issue of "logic".

You want to earn only as much as Chinaman might pay a peasant in Canton, Goat? About you, MURPHY?

I really have no idea what you children are attempting to defend here. The trend of events (Goatman thinks the concept of trend is a fallacy), was already it was your asses sooner or later. That is, assuming none of you is in that "upper class" no one is allowed to critique.

You're deflecting because you're afraid to concede an obvious point.

???

I conceded it #41. I said I didn't know if that was true or not. (did you somehow miss that part?) Then I made the point that you posited a logical fallacy - which you did. It is you who is deflecting, zed.

And I still maintain that we cannot base Obama's effect on the middle class based on Bush's.

"And I still maintain...."

That would be because there is no relationship between Bush and Obama? I'm afraid to ask, but is that your point?

(Goatman thinks the concept of trend is a fallacy),

*sigh*

I never said that. What you posited is what is known in logic circles as the Gambler's fallacy.

You say that Obama cannot hurt the midde class because Bush did. That is the same as the gambler's fallacy. It goes something like, "I've had 5 bad poker hands. The next one has to be good", or a pregnant mom thinking that because she has 5 boys, the child she is carrying is more likely to be a girls. These are not trends. At least they are not trends in that they can be used to predict future events.

Please don't put words in my mouth zed. I never said trending isn't valid. I am saying basing #44's performance on #43's is invalid logic.

Tell me, when you play a game of pool, does your performance have a relationship to the fellow that just finished his turn?

Your not speaking of idependent lotteries in this case, GOATMAN. Your ideas don't hold up. No one's playing a slot machine here.

Pardon me, "independent lotteries"---Up on your Nash, Goatman?

Your ideas don't hold up. No one's playing a slot machine here.

So you feel that since we just through playing a bad poker hand, (bush) the next one (obama) has to be better?

I disagree, as would any mathematician or staticician

The game isn't poker. We're not talking about gambling. That is, I'm not.

Been married, GOATMAN? Second marriage influenced by your first? What was your birth order?

The game isn't poker. We're not talking about gambling.

That's true, but the same logic applies. You cannot predict the future performance of one president based on his predecessor.

Been married, GOATMAN? Second marriage influenced by your first?

Yes, but only once.

What was your birth order?

I'm the oldest of four.

I've had not a few of you people tell me is perfectly, perfectly fine that American workers eventually earn no more than Chinese workers.
* * * *

Link please.

Has anyone even gone to recovery.org and looked at how much Obama's spending on Tax Cuts? It's more than any other one thing. This 'Obamanomics' is just another incarnation of the failed Reaganomics. Great tactic, Democrats, just go ahead and adopt your opponents' failed policies and hope no one notices that we've been there, done that, and utterly failed at it.

They will only be raising taxes on the portion of their income over $250.000. So, in reality, most will decide to plow profits exceeding that amount back into the business rather than pay additional income tax on it. Therefore the real effect of the tax increase will be increased investment into their businesses often meaning additional employees.
The surest wat to encourage business owners to decrease the number of employees is to reduce taxes and take away an incentive to plow money back into the company. Oh, and then let them take that additional profit and pump it into the stock market to take advantage of even lower capital gains taxes and you get lower revenues for the nation and fewer jobs too.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2009-03-01 08:40 AM

I can tell you have never owned a business nor were deeply involved enough in the decision making of a business where you understand any of this. Will some do as you said ... sure, but it will be a small 20% or less. The rest will restructure their company, maybe even break it into multiple parts to avoid paying the IRS excessive taxes. When that doesn't work, you do what you have to to protect your own. I do not own a business to provide for the masses. I did not take on loads of personal risk to give anything away. If the Govn't makes the rules too tight, I can & many WILL take their ball & play on a different field with more favorable rules. It is really THAT simple.

Give me 1 reason why investors should take risk in U.S. Markets with the amount of gvon't involvement now & in the Obama future? Where is the reward for taking risk? No, people/companies are going to return to an old model, private equity, not taking companies public. The govn't gets less prying eyes & investors can better control decisions. The other option (which will likely also happen) is money will start flowing into markets again, just not the U.S. Market. Watch what happens in China by beginning of 2010, they are going to open their market to outside investors en mass ... something that isn't allowed today. Investors like to take risk in markets where stuff is built, that is not longer the U.S. Market. With the current landscape & future things such as Cap & Trade, 'Production" is nothing but a thing of the past for the U.S.

Obama's spending bill has over 9,000 earmarks and is going to increase spending by nearly 9% .. yeah, this is change we can believe in. This is Change that Will Destroy Us.

Obama's spending bill has over 9,000 earmarks and is going to increase spending by nearly 9% .. yeah, this is change we can believe in. This is Change that Will Destroy Us.

#59 | Posted by noobama

No, actually it's the spending bill from Congress that has the earmarks (over 40% of which are GOP, by the way). Now, if Obama doesn't challenge those earmarks before the final bill is agreed on, then I would join you in criticizing him for it.

It's amazing how many of you don't understand how small business works. It sounds like $250,000 is a lot for a small business owner to earn and pay higher taxes on, but most small business are LLCs or Sub-chapter S corporations. This means that all the income for the business rolls to the owner as individual taxable income. So it may be that the business has income of $250,000 or more, but this is before expenses related to working capital etc. Plus this is a book income - not necessarily cash that the business has (accounts receivable that isn't cash for instance). So the business owner may only take home $50,000 or so as true income taken out of the business but will qualify as being one of the rich who deserves to pay higher taxes.

This small business owner is also employing people and if their taxes go up and they have to make a choice of reducing their take home pay to $30,000 or doing more work and working longer hours and reducing their staff - guess what will happen? More jobs will be lost - not overseas - small business generally don't have the opportunity to off-shore like big companies, but the owner will work longer in order to make up for the additional taxes they have to pay.

Small business employs the largest number of people - so stop penalizing them for working hard and trying to be successful and help them to grow, hire more employees and purchase more raw materials!

It's amazing how many of you don't understand how small business works. It sounds like $250,000 is a lot for a small business owner to earn and pay higher taxes on, but most small business are LLCs or Sub-chapter S corporations. This means that all the income for the business rolls to the owner as individual taxable income. So it may be that the business has income of $250,000 or more, but this is before expenses related to working capital etc. Plus this is a book income - not necessarily cash that the business has (accounts receivable that isn't cash for instance).

#61 | Posted by SouthernChik

That seems to be the main point of confusion among opponents of the measure. We are not talking about $250,000 of REVENUE, but rather $250,000 of PROFIT. Big difference.

And according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, about 95-96% of small businesses in the country make less than $250,000 net profit.

#60 from sanantoniorogue
No, actually it's the spending bill from Congress that has the earmarks (over 40% of which are GOP, by the way). Now, if Obama doesn't challenge those earmarks before the final bill is agreed on, then I would join you in criticizing him for it.

He/it has already been addressed, he is going to sign it. thus breaking another promise. yes 40% from the GOP(they should be shot also), which means 60% from the dem's. not sure what diff it makes who the earmarks are from, but the fact that this is being smoozed over by the leftest media, and sorry, but to just challenge it, he should NOT sign the stupid thing, period, but he will, and all the Obamanites and fanboys will excuse him, find someway to blame or compare to bush. just wish they would deal with the here and now..

He has already broken so many promises from his campaine but then again, im sure bush did too, problem is, his butt kissers will glance over this for the greater good and "Fairness" crap , ... My point, since he knows about it, and has anounced he WILL sign it, .. stop pretending, open your eyes, . change we can belive in, yea.. right, change my butt.

"Change my butt...."

I'll pass.

That seems to be the main point of confusion among opponents of the measure. We are not talking about $250,000 of REVENUE, but rather $250,000 of PROFIT. Big difference.

And according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, about 95-96% of small businesses in the country make less than $250,000 net profit.

#62 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-03-02 09:08 AM

You have a good point SAR. Even when talking about profit properly for a Small Business. There are many many things 95% of Americans do not understand. If they are set up as an LLC (which most are) or S corp, they are still at a HUGE disadvantage for certain things. Take Health Insurance. If I pay to partial or total coverage for an employee (at about $8K/yr for full coverage, good insurance) I can deduct it from Revenue, yet I can not pay for my own thru the business & deduct it. I have to count that as income. So my Family of 4 for average coverage cost me $12K-$15K/yr & I have to pay taxes on that income ..... let me know when employees of others have to do the same.

When I pay an employee $20/hr, $2/hr gets added to unemployment insurance, $1.5/hr gets added for general liability insurance, $2/hr gets added for auto insurance (we run lots of trucks/etc), $2/hr is the employers part of SS/Medi taxes, $4+/hr for 50% of health insurance. The employee makes $20/hr, my cost ends up being $32+/hr & I get off fairly light.

Obama, his followers & the vast majority here have NO CLUE what it take to run a business, let alone start one to bring it to a successful model ..... but they are more than happy to 'take' for it every chance they get. They are fine with a small business struggling to get going for 3 or 5 yrs, but once they get past their struggles, they are waiting at the door wanting their 'fair' share. Keep push the ONLY business sextor that has created jobs since 2000 & everyone will find out just how bad this will all get. There is always Risk vs Reward when running any business, but the risks are normally MUCH higher for a small business. The Govn't (& not just Pres Obama) has been raising the risk factor for awhile now & starting over the past months, they are lowering the reward factor. The MATH just doesn't work. There is very little incentive for a small business owner to put their capital into this economy in any fashion, not the markets, not their business, nothing. Without capital ventures/investment, Pres Obam could print $1000 bill 24/7/365 & hand them out daily & it will not matter.

"I can tell you have never owned a business nor were deeply involved enough in the decision making of a business where you understand any of this."

And I could honesty tell you that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I owned a business for about ten years so I know a thing or two about what it takes to run one. BTW, I somehow managed to earn a profit under those same "draconian" tax levels that Obama proposes we now return to...namely the tax rates of the Clinton era. I just can't communcate the amount of sympathy I feel for those earnig $250,000 who face slightly higher tax rates. Oh, boo hoo, the sky is falling.

"There is very little incentive for a small business owner to put their capital into this economy in any fashion, not the markets, not their business, nothing."

ER....higher income tax rates will be that incentive. Invest in your business or face increased income tax. Funny thing, since income taxes were reduced by REagan we've had less invested into domestic industry. Since the cuts by Bush even less. Funny how we had a strong industrial sector pre-Reagan. Taxes direct investment, always have. BTW, much of the gains realized from those tax cuts was plowed into real estate and the stock market which created bubbles....now its all gone. Had we left the tax levels alone we would have avoided the bubbles and we'd still have a strong manufacturing economy.

Funny , DANNI sounds like an idiot. , just because DANNI says it, it must be true.. and again, bringing up BUSH, he is not the president anymore, you loser, the mistruths and half-lies that come from 99% of your posts are so funny its a wonder your brain has the power to actually sustain life.

DANNI, just stop now, you dont know what the FUCK your talking about, you just to stupid , the only people that you can make sense to is the dumb down liberals that suck up the left media info and all your lies.

and stop blaming bush , move on, deal with reality, and owning a lemon aid stand, is not really owning a business. lol

your wrong, with regan, we had MORE invested into domestic industry, and you can thank clinton for the houseing market thing, do your research you idiot.

Invest in your business or face increased income tax.

Well, how do you reconcile that with an increase in the capital gains tax?

Your notion would have some merit if it was applied in tandem with a decrease in the capital gains tax.

I just don't understand why each and every measure supported by lefties and/or Dems is punitive toward those who produce.

"I just don't understand why each and every measure supported by lefties and/or Dems is punitive toward those who produce."

Nature of the beast, Jeff.

BTW Danni, Dow is down -235 @ 1:03 pm and another thing regarding your um, business...you don't have to keep putting that paper strip thingy over the toilet seat anymore I think we finally get that it is "Sanitized For Your Protection." And the toilet roll, we really don't care if it's over or under whatever you feel is best.

Thanks again,
TTM

Jeffj
I just don't understand why each and every measure supported by lefties and/or Dems is punitive toward those who produce.

That in lies one of life's big problems, to them, its about you producing to much, you show them up, you make to much, your too rich, shame on you, THEY decide how much is too much, THEY decide how much your should give, they also play by two different set of rules, I'll give you some time to figure that one out, but if you look close, you will see, its one set for everyone else and one set for them. ;)

That in lies one of life's big problems, to them, its about you producing to much, you show them up, you make to much, your too rich, shame on you, THEY decide how much is too much, THEY decide how much your should give, they also play by two different set of rules, I'll give you some time to figure that one out, but if you look close, you will see, its one set for everyone else and one set for them. ;)

#72 | Posted by noobama at 2009-03-02 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I think since they have been priviledged enough to make the money here in America that they can at least pay their fair share of the fees for being able to make money here in America. Call it paying their fucking dues like they are supposed to. Whats the matter with it anyways?? Want to be too greedy and allow these corporations to not pay their fair share?????

Larry

#73 | Posted by LARRYMOHR at 2009-03-02 01:17 PM |
I think since they have been priviledged enough to make the money here in America that they can at least pay their fair share of the fees for being able to make money here in America. Call it paying their fucking dues like they are supposed to. Whats the matter with it anyways?? Want to be too greedy and allow these corporations to not pay their fair share?????

omg, im not sure how to respond to such a stupid post. is this larry the cable guys, did you take your medication today?

I don't think that the continuing drop in the DOW can be exclusively pinned on market reaction to the 'stimulus'.

I think a lot of it is due to flat-out uncertainty - uncertainty regarding just how much damage toxic paper has done to the economy as well as uncertainty regarding what policies the Dems and Obama will ultimately enact regarding the economy. The markets respond very harshly to rapid, whip-saw change. Anyone attempting to plan financially needs some degree of policy predicability as well as measured change. In this regard I believe Obama is making a huge mistake with his rapid-fire, 'let's do everything at once/while we can' approach. I think he'd be better served for his own ambitions as well as the well-being of the economy if he took a slower, more-measured approach and even went so far as to actually try a bit of bi-partisanism in the spirit of his campaign promises.

"omg, im not sure how to respond to such a stupid post."

That you consider his point "stupid" only shows how biased your view is. Every balanced discussion of the state of the United States at this time includes a discussion of that issue.

"I don't think that the continuing drop in the DOW can be exclusively pinned on market reaction to the 'stimulus'."

I think very little of it can be. The market is just reacting to all the bad news it hears re the economy. And reacting in its usual "this and next quarter" short outlook. Also, unfortunately, it is doing it in its usual bipolar manner at this time.

#76 | Posted by AILTD at 2009-03-02 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

That you consider his point "stupid" only shows how biased your view is. Every balanced discussion of the state of the United States at this time includes a discussion of that issue.

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion, other than that your biased view , in that most of these discussions are not balanced, thus most of those that post on these boards are . how do i put it, bleeding heart liberals,.. and most of the discussion is far from balanced, just like the main stream media, but Im sure you believe that the main stream media is fair? lol sarcasm.. yup

"in that most of these discussions are not balanced,"

How would you know - since your opinion seems entirely derived from what occurs on this board. Or do you think that his point is discussed _only_ on this board?

"but Im sure you believe that the main stream media is fair?"

I _am_ sure that someone who obsesses about the mainstream media is unable to think for himself/herself. There is this concept of doing research. Try it sometime.

LOL @ Danni

you owned a business for 10 yrs? That means you knew just enough to get it started, but NOT enough to make a go of it. Nothing wrong with that, most start-up businesses fail, most small business owners fail at least once. The good ones bounce back & make a go of it. The ones that don't have enough sand in their pants return to employee status, which is ok. But pleae, owning a business for 10 yrs means nothing, own a business thru multiple good times/bad times rollercoasters & come out the other end. When you have done that, we can talk, until then, go teach a Business Class, 'cause those that CAN ... DO, those that CAN'T .... teach =P