the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 6:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

That is national suicide and we are seeing it occur right in front of
our eyes.

We have borrowed and spent our self to near insolvency.

Yep. Best one line explanation if have seen yet.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

That is national suicide and we are seeing it occur right in front of
our eyes.

We have borrowed and spent our self to near insolvency.


This is a long term problem, not a short term problem. Get real.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
-- Albert Einstein

So what drives DC, fleabagger and Obama insanity?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 6:18 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

I know more than you, your just a piece of trailer trash pretending to
know much more than you actually do. We can see your ignorance.

Canuk.. Really, don't you know you are dealing with Harry here... Why
would you address this kind of attack, just ignore it like Greg does, it
really ****es harry off to be ignored...

I usually don't, but like jerking the fleabaggers chain perhaps too much.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 6/14/11 5:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 14/06/2011 6:18 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to
cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

I know more than you, your just a piece of trailer trash pretending to
know much more than you actually do. We can see your ignorance.

Canuk.. Really, don't you know you are dealing with Harry here... Why
would you address this kind of attack, just ignore it like Greg does, it
really ****es harry off to be ignored...

I usually don't, but like jerking the fleabaggers chain perhaps too much.



I ignore most of Canuck's ignorance-based political/economic posts. I
don't believe the fool has more than $100 at risk in investments.



--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 6:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600,
wrote:

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.


and that, ladies and gents, is the essence of right wing ideology

You whine about the evil rich people yet you have a Masters degree and
you can't seem to break into the ranks of the rich.

I seriously doubt wf3h has a degree of any kind, unless it is a Masters
in Bu11sh1t and fleabaggerism.

our economy today is the result of the richest 1% doing what's right
for america

Risk and reward. What are you willing to risk to receive the reward? Are
you willing to invest all of your money?

wf3h is too chickensh1t. Easier to whine and bitch. The limits of the
cranium in his genetic mess.

and proof of that is they're better than we are. that's why our
economy is so strong

The proof is that they are out working rather than posting to this
newsgroup all day long, like you do.

Hey, you can't get enough money in your successful years that your
capital does the work for you. I spend 2 hours each morning doing the
markets...self employed investor? I suspect a few of us in this group
hit this category.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 13/06/2011 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wrote:

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

Because government tax policies and import policies made it a lot more
profitable to make things offshore and import them.
That started in the 90s (GHW Bush/Clinton)
Then you had the Clinton era deregulation that made the idea of money
making money more attractive than actually making anything.
Most of that Clinton era business boom was just an illusion (fraud,
phony profits and irrational exuberance in the stock market) and the
GW Bush boom was all based on borrowing money that didn't exist.

The people who got rich were the ones who knew when to cash in before
both bubbles popped.

And the only politician to call it right on, Ron Paul.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 6/14/11 5:05 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...


The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking
their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it.


Tax-sheltered retirement income is taxed as ordinary income when
distributed.
Always was, is, always will be.
It's expected that your income will be less when you retire.
You might be able to use Roth IRA's to some extent if you think working
vs. retirement yaxes will flip on you.
Normally it doesn't work that way.
Basically you've said if you're outside when it rains you'll get wet.

Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money
but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way
out of crushing debt.

Depends on income, but you have a point there.
Low income workers could lose by saving.
Here's the bright side.
Low income worker don't have any ****ing money to save.

What if everyone thinks the current tax on 401's is ok, tolerable so
they pump them up, and then "somebody" decides to say, triple the tax on
the 401's????


Why would that concern you? You spend you kid's college fund on
motorbike parts.



--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 12:36 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:52:13 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wrote:

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

Because government tax policies and import policies made it a lot more
profitable to make things offshore and import them.
That started in the 90s (GHW Bush/Clinton)
Then you had the Clinton era deregulation that made the idea of money
making money more attractive than actually making anything.
Most of that Clinton era business boom was just an illusion (fraud,
phony profits and irrational exuberance in the stock market) and the
GW Bush boom was all based on borrowing money that didn't exist.

The people who got rich were the ones who knew when to cash in before
both bubbles popped.

So, Greenspan was an oracle? Not really...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html

Greenspan had it partially right but the cause was government and US Fed
ponzi policies.

Lending money at below market rates caused it. There hasn't been
supply/demand in lending/borrowing for some time. The idea that
government sets the rates IS the problem and the market was not allowed
this correction.

If it was the market driving, too much borrowing would be offset by a
shortage of cash to lend and rates would go up. But the US Fed/Congress
flooded the market with cheap undervalued money. Causing the market for
debt to economy to inflate, and then someone wanted to be paid.

Still is a problem too. Government needs to borrow real money and stop
the devaluing money print NOW before a major currency run starts.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 2:43 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On 14/06/2011 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:01:51 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

In om,
says...

In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:33:44 -0400, wrote:


That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

let's get one thing straight

we dont need more INVESTMENT

we need more CONSUMPTION.

although investment is a form of consumption, ONLY MIDDLE CLASS
CONSUMPTION can pull us out of the depression

and wall street is NOT gonna let that happen

You can't get consumption without jobs and the only way we get that is
by expansion. It is clear the stimulus money just went into rich
people's pockets and not much actually got invested in expanded
industry. (thanks for a "no stimulus" stimulus bill)

There are plenty of stim projects underway, even if you don't believe
it or think they're working. They are working. We need more of them.

Name 10 of them.

LOL! It's a joke... I won't hold my breath.

http://stimuluswatch.org/index.php/project/by_state


When I look at the ones around here they are the same projects that we
would expect the government to kick in money into ... FROM OUR GAS
TAXES.
We are sending 38 cents a gallon off to DC and they dribble about half
of it back to us. That is not stimulus, it is government as usual.

Government consumes wealth. Lucky you are getting much back at all.

Well, if you look at the figures, California (with it's 6 figure
lifeguards at the beach), Florida, New York, and wonder of wonders,
Illinois got the most porkulous money...snerk

Isn't Illinois going through some corruption issues, yep, where Obama
came from on his last just visiting?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 2:42 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:43 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600,
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 5:33 PM, wrote:


I did hear one idea on capital gains that sounded interesting. Tie the
tax discount more closely to how long the investment was held.

They already do in the USA for cash accounts. 40k/IRA get the full hit
on withdrawal.

Explain the "cash account" thing?

I agree 401ks are a time bomb and I think we ain't seen nothin yet on
those taxes.



You wouldn't get the full tax break until it was held 5 years and make
it a higher percentage ending at the regular income rate at 1 or 2
years.

Fast way to scare off investment. In todays market, 5 years is not even
calculated. Too many changes coming for a commitment that long without
some guarantees no one will or can make.

A huge part of our problem is that businesses work in 90 day windows
while out competition in China looks at decades at a time.

For example, if you give me a 20 year tax rate guarantee for property
and income tax that I like, I would buy a Florida property tomorrow
morning. But with the debts out of control, I will hold off and decline
thank you. No sense in moving to the taxed poor districts of USA. And
Florida is one of the better places.


There is no income tax in Florida and we have SOH limits on property
taxes. That may actually be a bad thing because if we get a round of
massive inflation, the local communities may go broke. They were
certainly fat during the housing boom because the property taxes were
pegged to the sale prices and they were fantasy. The smart communities
like mine banked that excess money. although we did let the school
board get out of control ($20k per student kind of out of control)

I was wondering why the democrat pundit was pushing 401's as the
"safest" way to go right now... "FREE MONEY" he said, "from your
employer". I guess it makes sense now, then they can tax the crap out of
you and your employer... :(

The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking
their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it.

Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money
but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way
out of crushing debt.

That's the point... Get you to put as much of your savings into one
account (to be taxed later, big time) and get your company to match the
money going in... Then when they do hit you with taxes they get to tax
all of your savings, basically twice as they collect on what the company
put in too;)

Not only that, the serices you get cost more because they have to pay taxes.

Taxation as inflation. A real concept actually. How a 1% increase in
taxes can cause 4% of inflation if the right circumstances exist. And
they often do.


--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.