In article ,
says...

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?

Did my father's income predict my income. Did the fact that his salary
and benefits (BAS, BAQ and pay) predict that I would be earning the same
as him when I was only 25 years old?

I am just trying to understand what you are saying.


-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

Did you get turned down for membership at "the good marina?" Was your
lineage from the wrong side of the tracks?



-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?

I have succeeded in the American dream. I have done better than my
parents.



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****

The guy is really interesting.


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!!

I just checked my 401k and it is up 6% for the year.

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.

Look them up yourself.

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/

Pick 10 that were not already in the planning stages before 2008.

In article , payer33859
@mypacks.net says...

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.

Do you have any proof of that, or just another lie?

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:56:34 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:
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.

you should have been a standup comedian.

the kluxer has no more understanding of economics than he does of his
love affair with the KKK


Reply:
Actually Ron Paul was the only one to call several economic disasters
correctly of all the Pols.

meaningless. and he IS a kluxer


He seems to have a better understanding of Econ
101 than 95% of the rest of the politicians and most of the public also.
He
will not be President, but would make one hell of an advisor. Probably the
best candidate and will also not get the nod, is Newt G. He was the one
who
balanced Clinton's budgets. The Contract with America was one of the best
things that happened to WJC.

the contract ON america you mean. the continued war of the right
against the ameircan middle class


Reply:
No the war on the middle class is the insane overspending by almost all the
Congress's for 50 years. And the inflation that it has caused. 1968, a
middle class family had an income of about $14k. Could buy a house and car
and decent vacation. 43 years later, that is 1/2 of poverty level. The
Contract with America was to allow those middle class to have the value of
the money they earned. Not having to keep sending more to Washington, D,C.
to pay for bloated government. One of the only places in the USA that has
not seen a housing bust is the DC area. Lots of money there.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:00:24 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

Look them up yourself.

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/

Pick 10 that were not already in the planning stages before 2008.


Huh? What difference does that make? Never heard of "shovel ready"
projects? Now they have funding, and they're creating jobs. That's the
point moron.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:12 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:16:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:03 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:07 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

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

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

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a
trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and
efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it.

It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the
world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why
Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor.

Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of
government, business and people were relatively low compared to today.
Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways
and in fact had already started before WW II.

The US gov't was going broke during WWII. That's what the bond push
was all about.

For God's sake, look things up before you quack.

But that was for US weapons not forign weapons....look it up dough brain.

Bozo... we're talking about gov't spending. Gov't spent. The economy
recovered. I know it's a difficult concept for someone of your low
intellect...

With all of the current government spending around the US at the
federal, state and local level why is the unemployment rate at 9%?


Because 2.5 years isn't enough time to fix the problems created by the
last administration. Unemployment numbers typically take quite a while
to recover.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:43:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
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

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

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on?


Look it up. Two people posted the link.

Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work.


Just like a moron, wants someone else to think for him. I know you're
afraid to look it up, but man up.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:28 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

On 6/15/11 7:43 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

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

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

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on?


Look it up. Two people posted the link.

Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work.




Typical conservative: not enough smarts to look things up.

Lazy ass is more accurate.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:47:42 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:19:49 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

Wealth isn't the issue. It's the middle class who are getting screwed
and they're not interested in wealth. They're interested in short term
survival.

Wrong, wealth is the issue. Without generating new wealth you are just
moving the same money around.

Do you know where wealth comes from? It comes from natural resources.

So, someone who's barely able to feed his kids is interested in
creating wealth? Hardly. That's a long term goal, not a short term
reality.

Wealth has little to do with natural resources in the modern world...
only by association. Wealth has to do with ideas, innovation, business
acumen, and moral and ethical integrity. Try again.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.


Tomorrow... and screw the middle class who are going to get hurt. No
need to actually fix the problems, just screw over people. Typical
right-wing greedy asshole.

The progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken
care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they
are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given
government assistance.

The progressive movement has little to do with "people need to be
taken care of." That's the right-wing talking point on the subject.

As typical... screw the poor and the middle class. The only people who
really count are the billionaires. Well, screw you and the right-wing
agenda.