In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:22:44 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
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?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

It is funny that when some try to tell us that the only way to make
money is to spend money. Yet it just never seems to work with
governments. They more the spend the more debt they create for everyone.

It's funny that you don't know anything about how an economy works.

Governments do not generate wealth. The only thing governments are good
at with respect to money is waste, fraud and corruption.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
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.

The spending has been going on for about 100 years. It needs to stop.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 9:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wrote:

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

There was a lot more complexity to the investment in WWII.

We were investing our money in an enterprise to destroy all of our
competition ... literally.

Yep. Just raises costs, making USA less competitive.

funny that countreis with strong unions have the strongest
manufacturing.


Which is why Obama opens up on China then quietly shuts up. China just
might write off $2T of bad US debt and let USA take its chances with the
valueless dollar. Would make oil for Chinese cheaper.


HAHAHAH guess he forgot the keynesian dictim

if you owe the bank $1000 you have a problem

if you owe $1 million, the bank has a problem


Watch Chinese inflation, that is where the weak USD is driving the
pressures. If the Chinese let the USD float down in value, the USA will
see major inflation pressures.

really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle
class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years

you're just too stupid to know that


Bottom line, US economics is now owned by China. Far too much money
expansion from the US Fed and government debt to stop it now. The
reality hasn't set in, but China is already in many ways the #1 world
economy.

the chinese hold about 5% of US debt

so tell me again how they rule us

You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

In article ,
says...
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.

well you're right wing and kind of stupid, (a redundancy), so let me
educate you

-in teh US, the biggest predictor of income level is your father's
income

When my father retired in 1984 as an O-5 in the US Navy, as a graduate
of the USNA and holding a MS from the US Navy PG School, I was earning
the same as he was. I was 25 years old and had no degree from anywhere.

-the US has the lowest social mobility of any country in the OECD
except the UK

Social mobility? What does that mean. I get invited to diner with the
Vanderbilt's and the Mellon's?

-the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN

Again what is social mobility?

-a college educated person from the LOWEST QUINTILE has LESS of a
chance of breaking into the TOP quintile than a NON college educated
person whose parents are already in teh top quintile

You sure are hung up on this social mobility thing.

and yet you right wing MORONS still believe the amercan dream BULL****

I think you have a warped view of success. They guy who used to live
next door to me started out as a process server. He was a very good
process server. He then went into commercial real-estate. He is now and
executive vice president at an international commercial real-estate
corporation. He is also on the board of directors for a national
charitable organization. He has also met with, meaing actually talked
with for more than 20 minutes each, about 15 leaders of countries around
the world.

If you asked him for help he would do whatever he can to help you. But,
he is also motivated by money.


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?

HAHAHAH he beleives that wall street EARNED the money they stole!

Did you lose money on a stock deal some time in the past? You sure do
have a hard-on for wall street.


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.


really? uh....how did wall street WORK to earn the money they stole
you right wing moron?

Yeah, you probably invested $10,000 and lost it and now you are soured
on the stock market. Too bad you were too stupid to read the prospectus.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:27:36 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, wf3h 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.


The projects I see going on here have been on the master plan for
decades. I haven't seen them even talking about a new project.

They are finally building the ICC in Maryland. From I-270 at
Gaithersburg to I-95 in Laural. It only took 40 some odd years to get
past all of the planning, lawsuits and bull****.

They opened the first section for two weeks for free. They had 30,000
cars a day using the road. Then they turned on the automated toll, E-Z
Pass, and the number of cars dropped to less than 9,000 a day and has
stayed there.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:24:20 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle
class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years

you're just too stupid to know that


Bottom line, US economics is now owned by China. Far too much money
expansion from the US Fed and government debt to stop it now. The
reality hasn't set in, but China is already in many ways the #1 world
economy.

the chinese hold about 5% of US debt

so tell me again how they rule us

You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us.


gee. the answer is obvious

they dont rule us

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
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.

I think they are going to try to discourage people from cashing out
their 401ks to try to save the stock market. That usually happens in
the tax code.

I highly doubt that would fly.
As I've said, 401k's have always been sold as taxable as ordinary
income. Changing those rules would **** people off more than Ryan's
Medicare destruction plan.

There is a big problem coming when 83 million boomers do start pulling
that much money out of the market and there is not the excess income
coming along behind them to replace it. It is just another example of
the demographic problem that is going to threaten our whole pension
model. The only one we are really acknowledging is SS but all of the
pay as you go programs are threatened the same way.

I think you overstate the entire boomer deal.
I've seen there were only 76 million boomers ever born.
They span 16-18 years, so don't hit entitlements at once.
Many are already dead and never hit entitlements.
As some come into entitlements, others go to St. Peter.
Boomer life expectancy is about 69 years.
So the idea that they all live into their 80's and 90's is a myth.
As far as pulling money out of Wall Street, some.
But a lot will still be there when they kick off.
Hardly anybody with savings dies broke.
Tax policy is far more likely to hit inheritors and so keep equities
uncashed.


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.



These days the closest thing to a pension people have is the 401k

Stop right there. The closest thing MOST people have to a pension in
the the U.S. is SS. You still don't understand that.
I don't have figures, but a wild guess is less than half of current
workers even have money in a 401k, and far fewer significant money.
100% of them have SS, with some special exceptions.

and
if your employer will match, you should save all he matches.
I would not be shocked to see legislation that requires a certain
level of 401k savings ... for the same reason mentioned above, to
replace some of that boomer money that is coming out of the equities.

I would be shocked at forced 401k contributions.
Wouldn't be shocked by the revolution that follows.
What you're saying is the government would force worker taxation be
paid directly to Wall Strett fat cats.
In your dreams.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:40:50 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:


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.

well you're right wing and kind of stupid, (a redundancy), so let me
educate you

-in teh US, the biggest predictor of income level is your father's
income

When my father retired in 1984 as an O-5 in the US Navy, as a graduate
of the USNA and holding a MS from the US Navy PG School, I was earning
the same as he was. I was 25 years old and had no degree from anywhere.

why does the right wing think their little bull**** stories have
anything to o with reality? have you ****ers looked out a window
lately?

really?


-the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN

Again what is social mobility?

if you dont know what it is

and are truly too stupid to google it

then you're right wing


-a college educated person from the LOWEST QUINTILE has LESS of a
chance of breaking into the TOP quintile than a NON college educated
person whose parents are already in teh top quintile

You sure are hung up on this social mobility thing.

AKA the 'american dream'

ever hear of it, right wnger?


and yet you right wing MORONS still believe the amercan dream BULL****

I think you have a warped view of success. They guy who used to live
next door to me started out as a process server. He was a very good
process server. He then went into commercial real-estate. He is now and
executive vice president at an international commercial real-estate
corporation. He is also on the board of directors for a national
charitable organization. He has also met with, meaing actually talked
with for more than 20 minutes each, about 15 leaders of countries around
the world.

more reader's digest bull****


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

HAHAHAH he beleives that wall street EARNED the money they stole!

Did you lose money on a stock deal some time in the past? You sure do
have a hard-on for wall street.

HAHAHAHAH aint that a shame!

how's wall street doing for us? the US doing OK

you really are stupid, arent you? and PROUD of it!!

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

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?

So, you believe that because someone lived in a place they are
responsible for that place ever after. Typical moronic comment.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
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.

I think they are going to try to discourage people from cashing out
their 401ks to try to save the stock market. That usually happens in
the tax code.

I highly doubt that would fly.
As I've said, 401k's have always been sold as taxable as ordinary
income. Changing those rules would **** people off more than Ryan's
Medicare destruction plan.

There is a big problem coming when 83 million boomers do start pulling
that much money out of the market and there is not the excess income
coming along behind them to replace it. It is just another example of
the demographic problem that is going to threaten our whole pension
model. The only one we are really acknowledging is SS but all of the
pay as you go programs are threatened the same way.

I think you overstate the entire boomer deal.
I've seen there were only 76 million boomers ever born.
They span 16-18 years, so don't hit entitlements at once.
Many are already dead and never hit entitlements.
As some come into entitlements, others go to St. Peter.
Boomer life expectancy is about 69 years.
So the idea that they all live into their 80's and 90's is a myth.
As far as pulling money out of Wall Street, some.
But a lot will still be there when they kick off.
Hardly anybody with savings dies broke.
Tax policy is far more likely to hit inheritors and so keep equities
uncashed.


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.



These days the closest thing to a pension people have is the 401k

Stop right there. The closest thing MOST people have to a pension in
the the U.S. is SS. You still don't understand that.
I don't have figures, but a wild guess is less than half of current
workers even have money in a 401k, and far fewer significant money.
100% of them have SS, with some special exceptions.

and
if your employer will match, you should save all he matches.
I would not be shocked to see legislation that requires a certain
level of 401k savings ... for the same reason mentioned above, to
replace some of that boomer money that is coming out of the equities.

I would be shocked at forced 401k contributions.
Wouldn't be shocked by the revolution that follows.
What you're saying is the government would force worker taxation be
paid directly to Wall Strett fat cats.
In your dreams.

He's just in the Chicken Little crowd.