MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU B2002 on December 27, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
-
Not looking to debate, just would appreciate it if someone could tell me a website to read a balanced breakdown of all it entails.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
ta da.
-
Ok. I had done that, just made the assumption wikipedia wasn't best choice.
-
Ok. I had done that, just made the assumption wikipedia wasn't best choice.
It's not the best choice. Hopefully he was being sarcastic.
-
Basically in a nutshell, if you're livin' in a dwelling with heat and runnin' water, bend over and grab your ankles.
-
Basically in a nutshell, if you're livin' in a dwelling with heat and runnin' water, bend over and grab your ankles.
Well, it does take a village.
-
cato.org
mises.org
-
heritage.org
-
It's not the best choice. Hopefully he was being sarcastic.
Hards wasn't being sarcastic. Dude is nuts when it comes to .. this kind of stuff.
My stock plays have been genius, but trying to figure out when "something" (which won't really amount to crap) gets done is tough... have always thought something will be agreed to in early 2013. How will the illogic market respond? Illogically is my guess.
-
How will the illogic market respond? Illogically is my guess.
That would be consistent. What would be inconsistent and a surprise is an illoigic market responding logically.
Oh, and for the record, over the cliff and no deal for months, unless the market crashes. Think of the first mad max movie, will we be looking for gas or the guy tied to the front of the car?
-
Foxnews.com
-
cato.org
mises.org
This is not a debate, but these are also ideology driven think-tanks. Go there if you want a free market/neoclassical perspective on things. There are more left leaning think tanks that will give you a very different picture (Tax Policy Alliance is one).
For a more unbiased view, www.cbo.gov
The CBO is the non-partisen budget analysis office of Congress that prepares reports at the behest of members of both parties.
-
That would be consistent. What would be inconsistent and a surprise is an illoigic market responding logically.
Oh, and for the record, over the cliff and no deal for months, unless the market crashes. Think of the first mad max movie, will we be looking for gas or the guy tied to the front of the car?
Definitely a strong possibility (no deal for many months). Hoping the market takes a dump soon (I'm mostly short and holding put options, plus ready to better utilize some of this cash).
-
Definitely a strong possibility (no deal for many months). Hoping the market takes a dump soon (I'm mostly short and holding put options, plus ready to better utilize some of this cash).
You might be able to cut a sweet deal with Suzy Hamilton.
-
Definitely a strong possibility (no deal for many months). Hoping the market takes a dump soon (I'm mostly short and holding put options, plus ready to better utilize some of this cash).
Jay Bee looks like you're going to get rich today. Congrats
Should we expect to see you sitting next to Dick Strong tomorrow afternoon swapping stock tips?
-
Here is a fun little interactive designed to show how far you will fall based on your income, filing status, etc.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/12/fiscal_cliff_interactive_how_it_will_increase_taxpayers_taxes.html
By the way, I think Fiscal Cliff was the name of my Economics TA at MU.
-
It's not the best choice. Hopefully he was being sarcastic.
I was not being sarcastic. I have no idea what sort of knowledge base he had. That is a basic overview, balanced, and not incorrect.
I was wondering how long it would take some of you to post your think tank websites, and I was not disappointed. I only wish there was a Vegas line I could have thrown some money down on the under.
-
Has anyone else heard that something like 80-90% of those who cast ballots in the last election could not accurately describe the "fiscal cliff"? I thought I heard this on TV or the radio, but can't find a source.
-
Has anyone else heard that something like 80-90% of those who cast ballots in the last election could not accurately describe the "fiscal cliff"? I thought I heard this on TV or the radio, but can't find a source.
I think there is a large number of people in for a surprise in the next couple weeks when they see the payroll tax bounce back up another 2%. The other taxes can be dealt with retroactively and the IRS hasn't changed witholding requirements in anticipation that they will be dealt with...but that payroll tax is going to surprise some.
-
Fiscal Cliff Calculator to see how you are impacted.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/fiscal_cliff-calculator-1701.php
Looks like my charitable contributions are going down next year....hate to see that but if the money I donated to charities is now going elsewhere to pay for the biggest charity of them all, there isn't much I can do. It just doesn't exist any longer. Unfortunate and I suspect a lot of 501c's aren't too excited about what is coming.
-
I know I'll get blasted for this, but I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.
Higher taxes, less spending and paying down the deficit sounds fine to me. Painful, but necessary.
-
I know I'll get blasted for this, but I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.
Higher taxes, less spending and paying down the deficit sounds fine to me. Painful, but necessary.
Nor would I shed any tears.
-
I know I'll get blasted for this, but I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.
Higher taxes, less spending and paying down the deficit sounds fine to me. Painful, but necessary.
Yeah. If only they would use the additional revenue to pay down the deficit I'd find it somewhat palatable.
-
Yeah. If only they would use the additional revenue to pay down the deficit I'd find it somewhat palatable.
Well, there's the rub.
Honestly, if everybody put in an extra $100, that would be about 30billion we could use to pay down the debt.
Fine. Lets do it.
But, somehow Washington would unnatural carnal knowledge that up.
-
Well, there's the rub.
Honestly, if everybody put in an extra $100, that would be about 30billion we could use to pay down the debt.
Fine. Lets do it.
But, somehow Washington would frack that up.
I'd be all for it, if Washington could show some fiscal responsibility.
At some point individuals need to reinvest back into Civics.
-
Well, there's the rub.
Honestly, if everybody put in an extra $100, that would be about 30billion we could use to pay down the debt.
Fine. Lets do it.
But, somehow Washington would frack that up.
30 billion is 0.0018 of the national debt.
The number is too large to tax our way out of. It's the spending.
-
30 billion is 0.0018 of the national debt.
The number is too large to tax our way out of. It's the spending.
*Military spending
-
*Military spending
It's more than military, it's everything.
-
Please, Please, Please everyone keep in mind that calculations based on the AMOUNT of debt we need to reduce/eliminate are not a good benchmark.
The number you should be targeting is debt as a percentage of GDP. This is also what policymakers are looking to move. So policies that grow the economy faster than the debt (even if both growth rates are positive) are good policies.
As tempting as it is to do "back of the napkin" accounting calculations to determine how the deficit could be reduced and debt paid down, it ignores the $15.811 trillion dollar elephant in the room. The only way to solve our problem is to stabilize and then *slowly* reduce thd debt/GDP ratio. Any serious contractions in spending or massive expansions in taxation will only recess the economy and make our debt problem worse.
That's not politics. That's economics.
-
Please, Please, Please everyone keep in mind that calculations based on the AMOUNT of debt we need to reduce/eliminate are not a good benchmark.
The number you should be targeting is debt as a percentage of GDP. This is also what policymakers are looking to move. So policies that grow the economy faster than the debt (even if both growth rates are positive) are good policies.
As tempting as it is to do "back of the napkin" accounting calculations to determine how the deficit could be reduced and debt paid down, it ignores the $15.811 trillion dollar elephant in the room. The only way to solve our problem is to stabilize and then *slowly* reduce thd debt/GDP ratio. Any serious contractions in spending or massive expansions in taxation will only recess the economy and make our debt problem worse.
That's not politics. That's economics.
+1 well said.
It's more than military, it's everything.
Generally, I'll disagree. What I hear from a lot of people is that we need to decrease "entitlement" spending. While that sounds like a great idea, the economical return on investment of some of the programs is significant.
What needs to happen is for everyone to pay their fair share. Interpret that as you want, but our effective tax rate is extremely low.
I envision this topic being locked in a few minutes since I'm sure it is sure to degrade.
-
Please, Please, Please everyone keep in mind that calculations based on the AMOUNT of debt we need to reduce/eliminate are not a good benchmark.
The number you should be targeting is debt as a percentage of GDP. This is also what policymakers are looking to move. So policies that grow the economy faster than the debt (even if both growth rates are positive) are good policies.
As tempting as it is to do "back of the napkin" accounting calculations to determine how the deficit could be reduced and debt paid down, it ignores the $15.811 trillion dollar elephant in the room. The only way to solve our problem is to stabilize and then *slowly* reduce thd debt/GDP ratio. Any serious contractions in spending or massive expansions in taxation will only recess the economy and make our debt problem worse.
That's not politics. That's economics.
+1
Awesome post. Get this man to Washington?
-
Well, there's the rub.
Honestly, if everybody put in an extra $100, that would be about 30billion we could use to pay down the debt.
Fine. Lets do it.
But, somehow Washington would frack that up.
Pay down the debt? Are you kidding? If there's one thing we know for sure about Washington it's once they've got your dough they'll spend it. Hell, as long as they can get a majority to raise the debt ceiling every year they don't even need your money - they'll spend the money your kids and grand kids haven't even made yet. Buy today's votes with money stolen from tomorrow's voters - like all Ponzi schemes it works until it collapses.
-
Please, Please, Please everyone keep in mind that calculations based on the AMOUNT of debt we need to reduce/eliminate are not a good benchmark.
The number you should be targeting is debt as a percentage of GDP. This is also what policymakers are looking to move. So policies that grow the economy faster than the debt (even if both growth rates are positive) are good policies.
As tempting as it is to do "back of the napkin" accounting calculations to determine how the deficit could be reduced and debt paid down, it ignores the $15.811 trillion dollar elephant in the room. The only way to solve our problem is to stabilize and then *slowly* reduce thd debt/GDP ratio. Any serious contractions in spending or massive expansions in taxation will only recess the economy and make our debt problem worse.
That's not politics. That's economics.
Good post. The "political" calculation is this: when we have periods of stronger than usual growth, politicians project revenues into the future that are unrealistic. So they commit unrealistic amounts of money to government projects - money that's unavailable (without going into debt) when the "boom times" inevitably end.
-
Please, Please, Please everyone keep in mind that calculations based on the AMOUNT of debt we need to reduce/eliminate are not a good benchmark.
The number you should be targeting is debt as a percentage of GDP. This is also what policymakers are looking to move. So policies that grow the economy faster than the debt (even if both growth rates are positive) are good policies.
As tempting as it is to do "back of the napkin" accounting calculations to determine how the deficit could be reduced and debt paid down, it ignores the $15.811 trillion dollar elephant in the room. The only way to solve our problem is to stabilize and then *slowly* reduce thd debt/GDP ratio. Any serious contractions in spending or massive expansions in taxation will only recess the economy and make our debt problem worse.
That's not politics. That's economics.
I am no expert on the national economy, so I'll just assume that you are correct.
My only comment is that every time higher taxes are even mentioned, somebody says "but you'll kill the economy!"
I don't want to kill the economy (nor do I want to pay higher taxes), but at some point we are going to have to make the tough decisions, even if it hurts in the short run.
There are way smarter people than me that can figure out how it all works, but I'm tired of politicians and average citizens plugging their ears every time they hear about a tough economic decision expecting it to just magically go away.
-
I am no expert on the national economy, so I'll just assume that you are correct.
My only comment is that every time higher taxes are even mentioned, somebody says "but you'll kill the economy!"
I don't want to kill the economy (nor do I want to pay higher taxes), but at some point we are going to have to make the tough decisions, even if it hurts in the short run.
There are way smarter people than me that can figure out how it all works, but I'm tired of politicians and average citizens plugging their ears every time they hear about a tough economic decision expecting it to just magically go away.
I agree about the taxes 100%. They will certainly have some negative effect on growth, but there is significant empirical evidence showing that tax increases (especially when targeted at higher income groups) have LESS negative impact than spending cuts (especially cuts in programs that transfer wealth to lower income groups).
People can disagree on how much government intervention they want in the market, but to think that cutting programs for the lower income bracket (who spend a larger %age of their income than higher brackets do) isn't going to do some serious economic damage is crazy.
It might seem easy to ask "everyone to pay their fair share" but when you hit a certain point on the income distribution, the person who is consuming 100% of their income is going to make changes in their consumption patterns. If person X has to shell out $50 more/mo. in medical expenses, that $50 is now no longer being spent on food/consumer goods. That means the grocer has $50 less to invest in a new employee. This is how our 2008 recession took hold (after the initial financial crisis).
Higher taxes suck (I don't like them either) but if we're committed to reducing the debt/GDP ratio (I personally don't think we need to right now, but we've pretty much committed to the path at this point) then people need to realize that how we distribute the taxes/spending cuts has a real impact on the economy. Even if asking some %age of the population to pay more isn't "fair," it may well be better for EVERYONE for them to do so. I'd rather have a growing economy and pay more in taxes then have a recessionary economy and pay less in taxes.
-
Good post. The "political" calculation is this: when we have periods of stronger than usual growth, politicians project revenues into the future that are unrealistic. So they commit unrealistic amounts of money to government projects - money that's unavailable (without going into debt) when the "boom times" inevitably end.
Yup. Add to that the simple reality that all these yahoos want a "legacy"..they want programs that they authored, buildings they authorized funding for, etc, etc. It means basically kicking the can again down the road and spending a crapload no one has. Then, when the piper comes, no one has a clue or any sense of decency on where it all went. The question now is whether boom times ever come back to the point they had in other parts of our history and at a lengthy tenure? Or is the new normal now what it is, much like in Europe and elsewhere?
I know it's worked absolute wonders here in Calif. /sarc
-
Generally want to see LESS spending first then higher taxes, but damn, the AMT patch (which no one is discussing) is really going to screw with a lot of people on 2012 taxes....
at least this has to be fixed... or 30M people may $5K - $6K in additional taxes and the IRS may not be able to accept tax forms until March or later
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ex-irs-chief-no-amt-patch-and-tax-season-will-be-in-chaos-84853.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/ex-irs-chief-no-amt-patch-and-tax-season-will-be-in-chaos-84853.html)
-
Maybe just cut down on the amount of economic aid provided to foreign countries.
In 2012, the U.S. is expected to provide 55 Billion, yes 55 Billion to foreign countries.
Not only would it help the debt, but build new schools, etc.....
-
Maybe just cut down on the amount of economic aid provided to foreign countries.
In 2012, the U.S. is expected to provide 55 Billion, yes 55 Billion to foreign countries.
Not only would it help the debt, but build new schools, etc.....
Between that and cutting NPR funding we should be in the clear in no time!
-
Between that and cutting NPR funding we should be in the clear in no time!
rofl. nailed it.
As a percentage of GDP, we give jack crap away.
-
Informative page .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
-
There is no hope.
Build a compound for you and yours. That's the only way.
-
Make enough today to afford Suzy?
-
Make enough today to afford Suzy?
Decent day, but nothing spectacular. Trying to decide what to do with my largest holding.. DECK. Hate owning any stock at the moment, but had to jump in on it last month at ~$30 with that lovely balance sheet.
Suzy is cheap. Could spend a couple of nights w/her for the price of a crown.
-
+1 well said.
Generally, I'll disagree. What I hear from a lot of people is that we need to decrease "entitlement" spending. While that sounds like a great idea, the economical return on investment of some of the programs is significant.
What needs to happen is for everyone to pay their fair share. Interpret that as you want, but our effective tax rate is extremely low.
I envision this topic being locked in a few minutes since I'm sure it is sure to degrade.
The scope and size of military spending is problematic, has been for years. But you are giving way too much credit to the power of entitlement spending to stimulate the economy. That kind of a statement should have some backing.
Here's a graph that helps break down entitlement vs military spending. Feel free to debate whether SS is an entitlement:
(http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/usa-income-statement.jpg)
I mostly agree with the arguments regarding concurrent stimulus expenditures and GDP growth. Except politicians don't know when to shut the gasket, and the most recent example of significant stimulus spending (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) certainly did not assist GDP to the extent it added to the federal debt, which is now $16.34 Trillion:
Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
12/27/2012 11,546,343,682,876.98 4,791,899,708,870.10 16,338,243,391,747.08
-
Between that and cutting NPR funding we should be in the clear in no time!
I know you're kidding, reinko, but this is one of the problems with the entire situation. Every possible "solution" is shrugged at, derided or ignored because it won't do "enough" to solve the problem.
Why make millionaires pay higher taxes? That will only produce a fraction of what we need to actually reduce the national debt long-term.
Why change the way cost-of-living increases to Social Security are calculated? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
Why reduce corporate welfare by eliminating certain deductions? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
Why reduce the maximum for home-interest deduction from $1 million to $500k? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
And so on and so on and so on. Every special interest can argue that causing them "pain" won't really solve anything. Those lobbies are powerful and our elected officials aren't famous for their strong backbones.
-
I know you're kidding, reinko, but this is one of the problems with the entire situation. Every possible "solution" is shrugged at, derided or ignored because it won't do "enough" to solve the problem.
Why make millionaires pay higher taxes? That will only produce a fraction of what we need to actually reduce the national debt long-term.
Why change the way cost-of-living increases to Social Security are calculated? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
Why reduce corporate welfare by eliminating certain deductions? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
Why reduce the maximum for home-interest deduction from $1 million to $500k? That will only produce a fraction of what we need.
And so on and so on and so on. Every special interest can argue that causing them "pain" won't really solve anything. Those lobbies are powerful and our elected officials aren't famous for their strong backbones.
Term limits
Kick lobbyists out
Would help. The problem is that everyone seems to want to find ONE way to fix the problem. The only real solution is to adopt many solutions over a period of time.
-
I think this is a great read. It's short, and I have found it to be extremely convincing, regardless of one's political persuasion:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-379256-government-spending.html
"You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go."
-
You all realize that the fiscal cliff was created by a law signed by Obama (and passed by Boehner's House). It was part of the deal to stop the government shutdown in August 2011.
They created this animal called the "super-committee" that was suppose to come up with a long-term budget deal and the fiscal cliff was created to make the idea of no deal so distasteful that the surely make a deal. They could not deal so we have the cliff.
How did this happen? It happened when Obama signed the law creating it!
The cliff is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts is projected to slow the economy by 4%. Since the economy is growing less than 2%, the next recession starts Tuedsay when we go over the cliff. (FYI- Ben Bernanke invented the phrase fiscal cliff.)
Now let me speak the truth even though you won't like it ... This country is more divided than at anytime since the end of the civil war. We have very different views on the role of government. No agreement will be reached because that is what the American Public wants.
The 1930s Satirist H.L. Mencken once said the American public gets the government it deserves and it should be served up to them good and hard. This past election saw the highest percentage of incumbents reelected in American History.
We have this mess because it is what we want. And we are about to get it good and hard.
-
Term limits
Kick lobbyists out
Republicans had term limits in their "Contract with America"- did nothing.
Obama ran on throwing out the lobbyists - did nothing.
Welcome to Politics 101.
-
I think this is a great read. It's short, and I have found it to be extremely convincing, regardless of one's political persuasion:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-379256-government-spending.html
"You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go."
Steyn is right. If we want the government to provide European size goodies they come with a price tag - higher taxes, lower growth, and a chronically higher unemployment rate. Look to Europe (or California, New York or Illinois vs Indiana or Texas) for the future.
-
Raising income taxes in Illinois by 66% sure has helped this state, we're in the clear!
-
Republicans had term limits in their "Contract with America"- did nothing.
Obama ran on throwing out the lobbyists - did nothing.
Welcome to Politics Political Liars 101.
Fixed it for you
-
Republicans had term limits in their "Contract with America"- did nothing.
Obama ran on throwing out the lobbyists - did nothing.
Welcome to Politics 101.
Neither of those things were seriously going to happen. Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time. The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both. And of course it is against their best interest to impose them. As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.
-
Neither of those things were seriously going to happen. Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time. The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both. And of course it is against their best interest to impose them. As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.
Sad but true.
-
Neither of those things were seriously going to happen. Politicians have been running on those two ideas for a very long time. The problem is that only congress and the president can impose them both. And of course it is against their best interest to impose them. As long as they make the rules for themselves nothing is going to change.
Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want. The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.
-
Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want. The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.
Ah, an idealist.
-
Term limits
Kick lobbyists out
Would help. The problem is that everyone seems to want to find ONE way to fix the problem. The only real solution is to adopt many solutions over a period of time.
Hards,
Would you allow your congressman/senator to leave office at the end of their term?
Your side has lobbyists too. Would you allow them to be kicked out?
I agree with your sentiment. The politicians who need to vote on this will not let go of power.
-
Disagree ... we vote for them so we get the Government we want. The fault lies with the American public, not Washington.
Yes and no. The problem with all the gerrymandered districts from both sides of the aisle is that nothing swings anymore. People don't vote that altogether different than they ever did, but when each party locks in more districts, and fewer swing, the primary becomes more of a threat than the election. So each politician becomes less and less likely to be willing to compromise, and becomes more of an ideologue with each election they are more afraid of the primary than the other party's candidate. I'm fairly certain Silver wrote on this in the Times recently, but I admit that I haven't actually read it yet
-
Yes and no. The problem with all the gerrymandered districts from both sides of the aisle is that nothing swings anymore. People don't vote that altogether different than they ever did, but when each party locks in more districts, and fewer swing, the primary becomes more of a threat than the election. So each politician becomes less and less likely to be willing to compromise, and becomes more of an ideologue with each election they are more afraid of the primary than the other party's candidate. I'm fairly certain Silver wrote on this in the Times recently, but I admit that I haven't actually read it yet
Politicians reflect us. As a nation we are more ideologue and less will to compromise.
-
Hards,
Would you allow your congressman/senator to leave office at the end of their term?
Your side has lobbyists too. Would you allow them to be kicked out?
I agree with your sentiment. The politicians who need to vote on this will not let go of power.
Yes, of course I would. My "side" has nothing to do with this conversation.
-
Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants.
-
Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants.
The president won with 51% of the vote. He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants. (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)
The speaker argues his party won a majority of the House and they will only vote for what they agree with.
Who is right? Answer both. It's the fault of the American public for sending the conflicting views to Washington. Or, the American public is so divided we send these conflicting signals making it impossible to compromise.
-
The president won with 51% of the vote. He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants. (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)
The speaker argues his party won a majority of the House and they will only vote for what they agree with.
Who is right? Answer both. It's the fault of the American public for sending the conflicting views to Washington. Or, the American public is so divided we send these conflicting signals making it impossible to compromise.
Absolutely agree with this last part. Both sides won. Anyone that denies this didn't look at the results. The representatives won their seats to do what their constituents asked them to do. In the GOP's case, hold the line on taxes and cut spending. Obama won the presidency (though he got millions fewer votes and a smaller percentage...first time that has happened for a re-elected president since FDR). He's going to claim he has the will of the people to do what he wants.
Personally, at this point I hope we go over. Everyone should be paying more...tired of the few carrying the many. Tired of spending at 24% of GDP when ideally it should be 18%. It has been long overdue to pay the piper and there needs to be pain by everyone to finally wake up. Unfortunately I'm sure these guys will come up with a compromise that will do the following: Cut taxes in the short run for some citizens and will decrease spending over the next decade. That's always the hitch, "we'll cut spending down the road", which never happens.
-
Politicians reflect us. As a nation we are more ideologue and less will to compromise.
Only a sliver of the country has less will to compromise. The country is a bell curve of political philosophy. Roughly, a quarter are unyielding liberals, a quarter are unyielding conservatives. There's a vast middle that want to meet somewhere in the middle, probably shaded to the right than left, 2012's election notwithstanding.
Right now, there's no doubt the quarter of unyielding conservatives makes the most noise, and while most divergent from the other two groups, yields the most power through their relentless battles in GOP primaries .. creating a party that's further right than the populace they represent.
The majority -- the middle -- just isn't organized nor as principled.
The president won with 51% of the vote. He argues that means he gets 100% of what he wants. (Let me head off the question here ... Go look it up, he has said this loudly and repeatedly since the election)
Disagree. Both sides have argued they should have 100% of what they want. That's how negotiations start.
-
Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants.
Guess who said this after an electoral vote victory (hint: it wasn't Obama or Hards):
"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."
"When you win, there is ... a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view. And that's what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let's work."
-
I know I'll get blasted for this, but I hope we go over the fiscal cliff.
Higher taxes, less spending and paying down the deficit sounds fine to me. Painful, but necessary.
Yes, I too look forward to pulling my kids out of their school so they can attend the cr@ppy public school nearby, cancelling any family vacations and saving significantly less for retirement this year.
Hoo-effin'-ray.
Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.
It's like amputating your child's arm to deal with a hangnail because you and your wife can't agree over who should go fetch the nail clippers.
-
Hards believes an electoral vote victory is a mandate from the nation for the winning candidate to do anything and everything he wants.
Its funny to hear what I believe. :)
But I realize Jay is just trolling.
-
Yes, I too look forward to pulling my kids out of their school so they can attend the cr@ppy public school nearby, cancelling any family vacations and saving significantly less for retirement this year.
Hoo-effin'-ray.
Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.
It's like amputating your child's arm to deal with a hangnail because you and your wife can't agree over who should go fetch the nail clippers.
Definitely a BFin' of galactic proportions for all those who believe in the American dream and the success that will come with hard work.
-
Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.
I don't agree, there are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such. I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable. For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.
Now, having said that, it will make things worse for most sane people... is that a bad thing in the short term? We've had these conversations for decades and nothing ever happens. We're going to curtail spending..we don't. We're going to change the tax code...we don't. We're going reign in public labor costs..we don't. We're going to make sure "everyone pays their fair share"...whatever that means. We don't. All this while we are supposedly ALSO going to remain competitive with corporate tax rates...we don't.
48% of this country pays no income taxes (in 2009 that was 50.8%), but they do pay other taxes..payroll, etc. Nearly 20% of people in this country pay no income tax and no payroll tax. Nevertheless, the largest share of revenue comes from federal income taxes followed by payroll taxes next. Next time I hear someone say we should go back to the Clinton years I ask them if they truly mean it. That means spending at 18% of GDP, not 24%. That means the number of people actually PAYING income taxes is closer to 70%, not 52%. Mathematically, we can't get there right now.
-
Definitely a BFin' of galactic proportions for all those who believe in the American dream and the success that will come with hard work.
Are there still people that believe that exists? Come on 4ever, you can afford to give a little more...and a little more...and a little more. ;)
-
I don't agree, there are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such. I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable. For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.
So, are you saying that because these people are politicians, it's impossible for them to not get the point?
I'd suggest that there is a scary large number of politicians out there who don't get the point, who are only far too happy to put their personal (read: electoral) interests ahead of the people they're supposed to represent.
-
Are there still people that believe that exists? Come on 4ever, you can afford to give a little more...and a little more...and a little more. ;)
I'm sure poor 4ever is going to be destitute, living out of the back of his Mercedes ::)
-
I don't agree, there are politicians that want to go over the cliff and have said as such. I don't think it was setup at all to be "so awful" in their minds as to make sure a solution was inevitable. For some politicians, the ramifications of the cliff are a wet dream and they are excited to see it coming.
Now, having said that, it will make things worse for most sane people... is that a bad thing in the short term?
Yes.
Now this will all get negotiated away, but I think even the payroll tax restoration is going to have a pretty negative impact on the economy. Taking a lot of money out of circulation.
-
Yes.
Now this will all get negotiated away, but I think even the payroll tax restoration is going to have a pretty negative impact on the economy. Taking a lot of money out of circulation.
Money is never really taken out of circulation.
A dollar spent by a government agency is worth the same as a dollar spent by a Fortune 500 company is worth the same as a dollar spent a nonpofit organization is worth the same as a dollar spent by my family, etc.
One could reasonably and fairly argue that the dollar may be spent more efficiently - and therefore better economically - by a private interest rather than a public one, but it's not as if the money just vanishes.
-
Money is never really taken out of circulation.
A dollar spent by a government agency is worth the same as a dollar spent by a Fortune 500 company is worth the same as a dollar spent a nonpofit organization is worth the same as a dollar spent by my family, etc.
One could reasonably and fairly argue that the dollar may be spent more efficiently - and therefore better economically - by a private interest rather than a public one, but it's not as if the money just vanishes.
Except the payroll tax holiday, essentially converted "savings (social security)" into current spending. That current spending will go away. But you raise a good point, any budget cuts also decreases overall spending and will affect the economy.
-
Money is never really taken out of circulation.
A dollar spent by a government agency is worth the same as a dollar spent by a Fortune 500 company is worth the same as a dollar spent a nonpofit organization is worth the same as a dollar spent by my family, etc.
One could reasonably and fairly argue that the dollar may be spent more efficiently - and therefore better economically - by a private interest rather than a public one, but it's not as if the money just vanishes.
But the federal government is going to spend what it wants to spend anyway.
-
So, are you saying that because these people are politicians, it's impossible for them to not get the point?
I'd suggest that there is a scary large number of politicians out there who don't get the point, who are only far too happy to put their personal (read: electoral) interests ahead of the people they're supposed to represent.
I'm saying there are those that disagree with you and think it's a good idea to over the cliff. Interestingly enough, people on both sides of the aisle.
Howard Dean (D)..."let's go over the cliff" http://bigthink.com/think-tank/howard-dean-lets-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff
Robert Reich (D)...."let's FLY over the cliff" http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/lets_go_flying_over_the_fiscal_cliff/
Mark Levin (R) ..."let's go over the cliff"
NY Times Op ED.... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/forget-the-warnings-lets-drive-over-the-fiscal-cliff.html?_r=0
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-19/opinions/35505540_1_bush-tax-cuts-fiscal-cliff-tax-increases
There are any number of opinions from both sides that seem just fine with going over it, of course for vastly different reasons. The left wants to raise taxes, gut the military, etc. The right, wants to cut other spending in social programs, etc. The argument, in the short term, is pain is necessary. Honestly, I agree. Too much kicking the can down the road. If that means everyone's rates go up in the short term, then so be it. Maybe that will finally get people pissed off enough at their elected leaders. Or we can continue to be like California and a complete disaster.
-
I'm saying there are those that disagree with you and think it's a good idea to over the cliff. Interestingly enough, people on both sides of the aisle.
Howard Dean (D)..."let's go over the cliff" http://bigthink.com/think-tank/howard-dean-lets-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff
Robert Reich (D)...."let's FLY over the cliff" http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/lets_go_flying_over_the_fiscal_cliff/
Mark Levin (R) ..."let's go over the cliff"
NY Times Op ED.... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/forget-the-warnings-lets-drive-over-the-fiscal-cliff.html?_r=0
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-19/opinions/35505540_1_bush-tax-cuts-fiscal-cliff-tax-increases
Couple of quick thoughts:
None of these really argue for going over the cliff as a solution, which was my point. Rather, they suggest that going over the cliff in the short term would cause such hardship that it would force us to solve our problems. Which was the point of establishing the cliff in the first place, in that the mere threat of those hardships - rather than their reality - would lead to real solutions.
And all say, in effect, "Go over the cliff, but ..."
Reich, for example, only suggests going over the cliff only if coupled with middle class tax cuts.
Super says go over the cliff, but then restore middle-class tax cuts and moderate the defense cuts.
Theissen says "Go over the cliff" but only as a negotiating tactic for future talks.
Only Dean seems to suggest going over the cliff might be a good thing ... and is that the guy you really want to side with in this debate?
So, actually, they don't disagree with what I initially said .... no one who gets the point believed(s) the cliff was a solution. Rather, it was a great big stick to force the parties to compromise. Which, apparently, they cannot do.
Or we can continue to be like California and a complete disaster.
Fallacy of false choice. It's not a choice between Cliff or California (or Greece or whichever example is preferred). There are many other options.
-
Yes, I too look forward to pulling my kids out of their school so they can attend the cr@ppy public school nearby, cancelling any family vacations and saving significantly less for retirement this year.
Hoo-effin'-ray.
Those of you hoping for the cliff completely miss the point of the cliff.
It was set up to be something so awful, such a lose-lose proposition that the politicians would be forced to compromise for a workable solution.
It was not set up as an alternative solution. It will not make things better, and never was established to make things better. It will make things worse.
It's like amputating your child's arm to deal with a hangnail because you and your wife can't agree over who should go fetch the nail clippers.
Well, fundamentally, I think most politicians make decisions that will get them re-elected, not what is actually best for the country.
With this in mind, I think they often fail to make tough decisions that will ultimately help the America, because that won't help them get re-elected.
The fiscal cliff is sort of a blanket excuse for the tough decisions to finally get made.
Time to take our medicine.
I wanted to buy a new boat this year, but I also want a viable US economy 20 years from now. We can't keep trying to spend our way out of trouble because it might hurt. Time to eat our vegetables. I don't have to like it. But, I believe it's necessary.
-
Well, fundamentally, I think most politicians make decisions that will get them re-elected, not what is actually best for the country.
With this in mind, I think they often fail to make tough decisions that will ultimately help the America, because that won't help them get re-elected.
The fiscal cliff is sort of a blanket excuse for the tough decisions to finally get made.
Time to take our medicine.
I wanted to buy a new boat this year, but I also want a viable US economy 20 years from now. We can't keep trying to spend our way out of trouble because it might hurt. Time to eat our vegetables. I don't have to like it. But, I believe it's necessary.
Again, you're mistaking the cliff for something that might solve the problem.
To the contrary, the cliff is likely to cause a double-dip recession, which would offset the impact of tax hikes and create the need for additional government spending.
You may believe it's necessary, but that puts you in very limited company. Most serious economists think it's unnecessary and a terrible idea.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/fiscal-cliff-economists/index.html
-
Again, you're mistaking the cliff for something that might solve the problem.
To the contrary, the cliff is likely to cause a double-dip recession, which would offset the impact of tax hikes and create the need for additional government spending.
You may believe it's necessary, but that puts you in very limited company. Most serious economists think it's unnecessary and a terrible idea.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/fiscal-cliff-economists/index.html
Well, I think its necessary in that it can force some action and tough decisions.
I'm not an expert in economics, so I can't pretend to know all of the details of the fiscal cliff and the exact outcomes.
I'm more into politicians making the correct/tough decisions.
-
Decent day, but nothing spectacular. Trying to decide what to do with my largest holding.. DECK. Hate owning any stock at the moment, but had to jump in on it last month at ~$30 with that lovely balance sheet.
DECK up 4.30% to $39.55 this morning. Get at your boy.
-
Or we can continue to be like California and a complete disaster.
Respectfully, why don't you leave CA then?
-
Respectfully, why don't you leave CA then?
Mostly my wife, youngest of 9, all her siblings but one are here. All her nieces, nephews, etc. But, I've already taken care of the next destination with a purchase outside the state. She knows how badly I want out and each year she gets closer and closer to the same conclusion. I won't miss it for a nanosecond. It's an absolute shame what has happened to the place.
21 years in a row now more leaving state than coming in...amazing. What a shame, but not at all surprising. Hopefully we are not far behind. The latest round of taxes starting today will move even more out. Nothing like having the highest taxes in the nation (starting today) and wondering what you get for it.
http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/1904483/Californians-Leaving-The-State.html
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/11/15838671-california-exodus-as-thousands-quit-state-for-texas-ariz-elsewhere?lite
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/12/History-Suggests-More-Californians-Will-Flee-State-After-Recent-Tax-Increases
-
Business takes me to the Reno/Minden area of Nevada every year. One of the guys I meet with left the Sacramento area about five years ago, and his biggest regret is not leaving earlier.
-
Mostly my wife, youngest of 9, all her siblings but one are here. All her nieces, nephews, etc. But, I've already taken care of the next destination with a purchase outside the state.
How many acres did you purchase in Bloomington?
-
How many acres did you purchase in Bloomington?
I don't need to purchase any there, I have a friend that lets me stay at his pad.
-
Business takes me to the Reno/Minden area of Nevada every year. One of the guys I meet with left the Sacramento area about five years ago, and his biggest regret is not leaving earlier.
I can tell you countless stories like that. Colorado, Arizona, Texas, etc. It is truly amazing what a disaster this state is. It is not even recognizable and pension liabilities to the tune of 1/4 of the nation's $2.2 trillion unfunded liabilities. Think about that, we have 13% of the nation's population but 26% of the unfunded liabilities. What's even more laughable is the politicians here are factoring the growth on the rate of return at 7.75%. LOL. 7.75%...these people are snorting so much magic dust. They'll be lucky to get 4%. We've had 4 cities go bankrupt so far, and it's just the tip of the iceburg.
-
Agree, Chicos, tip of the iceberg. My fear is that DC will decide to 'bail em out' at the rest of the country's expense. Then, I suppose, Illinois, or whomever is next. Seems the mindset is 'WTF, if you're already spending/printing money you don't have, why not a little more.'
-
I can tell you countless stories like that. Colorado, Arizona, Texas, etc. It is truly amazing what a disaster this state is. It is not even recognizable and pension liabilities to the tune of 1/4 of the nation's $2.2 trillion unfunded liabilities. Think about that, we have 13% of the nation's population but 26% of the unfunded liabilities. What's even more laughable is the politicians here are factoring the growth on the rate of return at 7.75%. LOL. 7.75%...these people are snorting so much magic dust. They'll be lucky to get 4%. We've had 4 cities go bankrupt so far, and it's just the tip of the iceburg.
Chicos, Illinois isn't too far behind CA. jsglow and I are bailing as soon as we retire (or semi-retire). We have no ties here except for our jobs.
-
See all you cats in Australia.
-
Any coincidence that California and Illinois are consistently under Democratic "leadership," yet Texas is consistently under Republican leadership and has a thriving economy?
Hmm...but let's not let facts get in the way..
-
Any coincidence that California and Illinois are consistently under Democratic "leadership," yet Texas is consistently under Republican leadership and has a thriving economy?
Hmm...but let's not let facts get in the way..
Other facts:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1109193#bmb=1
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/18/news/economy/poverty_perry_texas/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2011-report.pdf
http://healthyamericans.org/report/98/obseityratesbystate
If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.
-
Any coincidence that California and Illinois are consistently under Democratic "leadership," yet Texas is consistently under Republican leadership and has a thriving economy?
Hmm...but let's not let facts get in the way..
Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil. And your fearless leader named Rick Perry, if he is anything like what he came across during the Republican primaries, is the biggest empty suit on the planet...which is exactly what big oil wants.
Mods, go ahead and lock this now before it degenerates further.
Oh
-
Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil. And your fearless leader named Rick Perry, if he is anything like what he came across during the Republican primaries, is the biggest empty suit on the planet...which is exactly what big oil wants.
Mods, go ahead and lock this now before it degenerates further.
Oh
Pretty uninformed...oil...is just a fraction of the Texas economy...numerous Fortune 500 companies have relocated out of California to Texas...DFW is a high tech center, telecom, retail, medical...
Other facts:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1109193#bmb=1
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/18/news/economy/poverty_perry_texas/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2011-report.pdf
http://healthyamericans.org/report/98/obseityratesbystate
If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.
Fortunately for you, you had Mitt Romney running Massachusetts...otherwise Massachusetts could be lumped in with the rest of the depressed liberal states...
And..pretty sure Texas has WAY more first generation Americans than does Massachusetts, lots of illegals too....many of the same problems California and New York face..yet Texas is significantly better off than those 2 states.
But hey...enjoy freezing your ass off in Massachusetts paying ridiculous state income taxes/taxes in general.
-
Ironic timing. Got a call about 20 minutes ago from one of my wife's sisters. They are being transferred to Texas. Her husband works for Chevron-Texaco, which was the largest employer here in California. They just announced moving close to 1000 employees to Texas from California which now means they employee more in Texas than in California.
They live up in the Bay Area. My daughter is distraught, as her cousin is moving out of state. This is another nail in the coffin though for me, so I'm loving it on the inside. My wife's closest sister, will be out of the state within 6 months. One less reason (a HUGE one) to stick around. At some point it will just be the public employees left, the tech and wine industry and not much else. Sad, really is sad, but when you constantly send messages that corporations are evil, not wanted or not needed, you shouldn't be surprised when they leave. Some day they'll learn, but not likely while I'm here.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/12/21/california-encourages-business-flight/
-
See all you cats in Australia.
LOL. I have a gal working for me right now with Aussie citizenship. About 4 months ago I asked her what do I need to do to become an Aussie citizen...I was only half kidding. Now I'm only 25% kidding.
-
Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil. And your fearless leader named Rick Perry, if he is anything like what he came across during the Republican primaries, is the biggest empty suit on the planet...which is exactly what big oil wants.
Mods, go ahead and lock this now before it degenerates further.
Oh
You need to get out more often. Texas is a lot more than big oil. The sad part is that California has a ton of oil deposits, it's what I grew around as my dad was a petroleum geologist for Getty and Unocal here in Calif. But they've made it so difficult out here, companies are leaving. That's a nice broad brush comment about what Big Oil wants, but it's also more than a bit insincere and based on boogeyman stories dreamed up.
-
Well this WAS a reasonable thread. Not shocked to see a couple of ideologues take it off course.
-
Well this WAS a reasonable thread. Not shocked to see a couple of ideologues take it off course.
(http://krazykk.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/118361251545.jpg)
-
Hards is gunna be pissed when he realizes his "share" of his SS taxes went back up to 6.2% yesterday.
Since he makes $42,000... that's $42k x 6.2% = $840 this year. $840 can buy a lot of granola and sandals.
-
Hards is gunna be pissed when he realizes his "share" of his SS taxes went back up to 6.2% yesterday.
Since he makes $42,000... that's $42k x 6.2% = $840 this year. $840 can buy a lot of granola and sandals.
Well, I make more than that now. And I don't mind chipping in. I'd hate to see all you old timers out in the streets because I need those sandals and granola more than you need food and shelter.
-
Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil. And your fearless leader named Rick Perry, if he is anything like what he came across during the Republican primaries, is the biggest empty suit on the planet...which is exactly what big oil wants.
Mods, go ahead and lock this now before it degenerates further.
Oh
That’s right, dig into that democrat play book and blame everything on evil big oil. I challenge you to go 1 hour without using something that is produced with the help of “big oil”. Not to mention they pay billions in tax dollars and create millions of jobs for the economy.
-
That’s right, dig into that democrat play book and blame everything on evil big oil. I challenge you to go 1 hour without using something that is produced with the help of “big oil”. Not to mention they pay billions in tax dollars and create millions of jobs for the economy.
??????
-
??????
You disagree?
-
Other facts:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1109193#bmb=1
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/18/news/economy/poverty_perry_texas/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2011-report.pdf
http://healthyamericans.org/report/98/obseityratesbystate
If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.
I am sure you can find a number of articles that support any argument. You are using some pretty liberal leaning publications that had an agenda of making Rick Perry look bad when he was running for president. CNN, NY Times, and 2 dot orgs. Not exactly organizations that I would trust to get unbiased information.
There are other factors that those articles will not tell you, like Texas has a huge Hispanic and illegal alien problem that skew the numbers. Air quality? There are many cities that have air quality issues for a number of reasons, L.A., Denver, Chicago.
-
??????
Look it up not hard to find information.
-
That’s right, dig into that democrat play book and blame everything on evil big oil. I challenge you to go 1 hour without using something that is produced with the help of “big oil”. Not to mention they pay billions in tax dollars and create millions of jobs for the economy.
Firstly, I am not a democrat. Secondly, you just said exactly the same thing I did, which is that oil/the energy industry is largely responsible for a very robust economy in Texas. That's a no-brainer. Of course there are other industries that contribute, but oil is what made Texas what it is today.
Oh, and Chicos, I have been to Texas more times than I can count. My best friend in the world used to live in Austin and is now in Houston and I have travelled there for business dozens of times. Much prefer Houston to Dallas (shocking I know since I hate BIG OIL and all) as the people are generally less arrogant than those I have encountered in Dallas.
On my many trips I am generally very excited to be leaving again as the whole "Don't mess with Texas" and Everything is bigger in Texas" schtick gets old really fast. Other than that, it's a great place.
-
A thriving economy isn't the end-all-be-all measuring stick for a government (either state or federal).
I can create a thriving economy tomorrow. Deregulate everything, ban unions, no more OSHA, repeal all environmental laws, sub-contract out all government labor jobs, and remove the minimum wage. We'll be thriving in no time. Seriously. It would work.
But, at what cost? Poor workplace safety? Ruin every waterway in the country with toxic waste? Cut down EVERY tree? Workers working 60+ hours per week for low wages? Copy-cat products and blatant rip-offs of patents? A desperate working/labor class of people?
The key is to have sound economic policies while keeping the long term vision and quality of life high for your citizens.
So, saying "(Insert place) has a thriving economy!" is great, but it's short-sighted to think that is the primary goal for a governing body.
I learned this all in SIM CITY.
-
I am sure you can find a number of articles that support any argument. You are using some pretty liberal leaning publications that had an agenda of making Rick Perry look bad when he was running for president. CNN, NY Times, and 2 dot orgs. Not exactly organizations that I would trust to get unbiased information.
There are other factors that those articles will not tell you, like Texas has a huge Hispanic and illegal alien problem that skew the numbers. Air quality? There are many cities that have air quality issues for a number of reasons, L.A., Denver, Chicago.
Let today be the day we found out that being a .org website qualifies you as liberal leaning.
And that CNN and the NYT are discounted for being overly biased newsources.
Lock this mother down.
-
I am sure you can find a number of articles that support any argument. You are using some pretty liberal leaning publications that had an agenda of making Rick Perry look bad when he was running for president. CNN, NY Times, and 2 dot orgs. Not exactly organizations that I would trust to get unbiased information.
There are other factors that those articles will not tell you, like Texas has a huge Hispanic and illegal alien problem that skew the numbers. Air quality? There are many cities that have air quality issues for a number of reasons, L.A., Denver, Chicago.
And you get your "unbiased" information where exactly? Please share.
-
Look it up not hard to find information.
I'm well aware that they do. But that what is required of them as a corporation. What's the point?
-
A thriving economy isn't the end-all-be-all measuring stick for a government (either state or federal).
I can create a thriving economy tomorrow. Deregulate everything, ban unions, no more OSHA, repeal all environmental laws, sub-contract out all government labor jobs, and remove the minimum wage. We'll be thriving in no time. Seriously. It would work.
But, at what cost? Poor workplace safety? Ruin every waterway in the country with toxic waste? Cut down EVERY tree? Workers working 60+ hours per week for low wages? Copy-cat products and blatant rip-offs of patents? A desperate working/labor class of people?
The key is to have sound economic policies while keeping the long term vision and quality of life high for your citizens.
So, saying "(Insert place) has a thriving economy!" is great, but it's short-sighted to think that is the primary goal for a governing body.
I learned this all in SIM CITY.
lol china.
-
Firstly, I am not a democrat. Secondly, you just said exactly the same thing I did, which is that oil/the energy industry is largely responsible for a very robust economy in Texas. That's a no-brainer. Of course there are other industries that contribute, but oil is what made Texas what it is today.
Oh, and Chicos, I have been to Texas more times than I can count. My best friend in the world used to live in Austin and is now in Houston and I have travelled there for business dozens of times. Much prefer Houston to Dallas (shocking I know since I hate BIG OIL and all) as the people are generally less arrogant than those I have encountered in Dallas.
On my many trips I am generally very excited to be leaving again as the whole "Don't mess with Texas" and Everything is bigger in Texas" schtick gets old really fast. Other than that, it's a great place.
(Firstly? Is that a word?) Firstly, I didn’t say you were a Democrat, read more closely.
Second, Oil WAS a major part of the Texas economy, but the Texas economy is much more diversified now. Houston had a horrible oil crash in the 80’s but they recovered largely by having a more diversified economy. Houston is doing well now and it is not primarily because of the oil companies.
Also, travelling to Texas many times for business and to visit a friend does not make you an expert on the Texas economy.
-
lol china.
Well, yea, that's a decent example... but their political landscape is so different that I don't really know enough to talk intelligently about it.
For a more local example you go back the the US industrial revolution where you can see thriving capitalism, which I like... but there were some serious costs, which the government helped correct over time.
-
Let today be the day we found out that being a .org website qualifies you as liberal leaning.
And that CNN and the NYT are discounted for being overly biased newsources.
Lock this mother down.
If you do no think CNN and NY Times are liberal leaning and bias, then I suggest you open your eyes a little wider. And yes many .orgs are liberal leaning because many get funding from the government.
-
And yes many .orgs are liberal leaning because many get funding from the government.
Wait, is this is a real thing?
Stuff funded by tax payers is inherently liberal and should be dismissed automatically?
-
If you do no think CNN and NY Times are liberal leaning and bias, then I suggest you open your eyes a little wider. And yes many .orgs are liberal leaning because many get funding from the government.
Did you even read the links that were posted? The NY Times piece was an infographic on the tax burden. Please show me the overwhelming and 'unbiased' evidence you have to attack their analysis with.
I can understanding if you were so easily dismissing something like MSNBC or Mother Jones, but in spectrum of viewpoints, the NYT is pretty much in the middle of things.
-
I'm well aware that they do. But that what is required of them as a corporation. What's the point?
The point is, that oil companies should not be demonized at every turn, especially to become re-elected. Oil companies have the right to make a profit just like any other company. Paying billions in taxes to the over spending government is a good thing, correct?
You are correct, it is what is required of them as corporations, but they are no different than other big corporations. You do not see other big corporations such as Ford, GM, Apple, Microsoft, GE get ragged on constantly for being greedy to the extent that oil companies do. Why? Because the average person can relate to paying more money at the pump, so the politicians jump on it to help them politically. The reality is the price of bread, milk and many other things has probably increased much more than a gallon of gas has in the past 30 years.
-
Wait, is this is a real thing?
Stuff funded by tax payers is inherently liberal and should be dismissed automatically?
No, you are putting words in my mouth. The main point is that there are many sources of information out there that will give you many sides to a story. To cherry pick a few that supports your point of view does not tell the whole picture. All I am saying is have some objectivity when reading an article and understand who is writing the article.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/oRGJk.gif)
In before the lock.
-
Did you even read the links that were posted? The NY Times piece was an infographic on the tax burden. Please show me the overwhelming and 'unbiased' evidence you have to attack their analysis with.
I can understanding if you were so easily dismissing something like MSNBC or Mother Jones, but in spectrum of viewpoints, the NYT is pretty much in the middle of things.
There is a media bias, I think most people would agree with that. When you read an article or watch the news you have to take an objective look at it because they are usually slanting it one way or another. Almost any data or statistics can be looked at to support your point of view. Some things are left out or taken out of context or do not tell the whole story.
NYT is generally known as a left leaning publication.
-
I'm sure poor 4ever is going to be destitute, living out of the back of his Mercedes ::)
Are you referrin' to the Benz I earned or the Benz that I got because government is responsible for my success?
-
No, you are putting words in my mouth. The main point is that there are many sources of information out there that will give you many sides to a story. To cherry pick a few that supports your point of view does not tell the whole picture. All I am saying is have some objectivity when reading an article and understand who is writing the article.
Well, I don't want to start a crappy debate, but this is what you said:
If you do no think CNN and NY Times are liberal leaning and bias, then I suggest you open your eyes a little wider. And yes many .orgs are liberal leaning because many get funding from the government.
You didn't dismiss the information in the .org articles based upon the facts they present, you simply dismissed them because they are .orgs, and in your mind, many .orgs are liberal leaning because they are funded by the government.
Is this this accurate?
-
Well, I don't want to start a crappy debate, but this is what you said:
You didn't dismiss the information in the .org articles based upon the facts they present, you simply dismissed them because they are .orgs, and in your mind, many .orgs are liberal leaning because they are funded by the government.
Is this this accurate?
If you don't want to start a crappy debate then don't. I am starting to feel like The Equalizer here.
For the record I am not dismissing anything, but at the same time try to be objective and realize where the information is coming from and why they are presenting it. I am not against federally funded .orgs or any .orgs. The person who posted the articles and reports, posted it to support their point of view. Is that not true? I am sure there are other reports, articles, data that support the other point of view.
-
If you don't want to start a crappy debate then don't. I am starting to feel like The Equalizer here.
For the record I am not dismissing anything, but at the same time try to be objective and realize where the information is coming from and why they are presenting it. I am not against federally funded .orgs or any .orgs. The person who posted the articles and reports, posted it to support their point of view. Is that not true? I am sure there are other reports, articles, data that support the other point of view.
Did you read the articles? What exactly is inaccurate (in your mind)?
It seems like you dismissed them initially because they were ".orgs", and now you are trying dismiss the articles because the guy who posted them is a liberal?
Is this accurate?
Oh, and for the record, I haven't read crap, nor do I have a real opinion of TX's current governing body. I simply see some gaps in logic here.
-
I think the payroll tax cut not getting extended is going to hurt the economy a lot more than people think. 2% may not seem much, but that 2% is going to come from discretionary income people use for vacations/car purchases/etc. Will be good for the credit card companies.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/oRGJk.gif)
In before the lock.
Sorry to ruin the gif and the movie... but Indy wasn't wearing the hat... someone threw it at him while he was diving under the door.
Cannot unsee
-
Sorry to ruin the gif and the movie... but Indy wasn't wearing the hat... someone threw it at him while he was diving under the door.
Cannot unsee
Damn you. This is almost as unforgettable as the first time someone pointed out the arrow in the Fedex logo.
-
Did you read the articles? What exactly is inaccurate (in your mind)?
It seems like you dismissed them initially because they were ".orgs", and now you are trying dismiss the articles because the guy who posted them is a liberal?
Is this accurate?
Oh, and for the record, I haven't read crap, nor do I have a real opinion of TX's current governing body. I simply see some gaps in logic here.
Guns,
I don’t think anything is necessarily inaccurate. However, often times there are other factors and reasons for the conclusions that are not necessarily presented. If I told you Juan Anderson scored 20 points and gave no other information, you would say that was awesome. Would you feel the same way if I told you he took 40 shots, turned the ball over 10 times and MU lost by 20?
Knowing your sources and being an objective reader is a good thing. I am not dismissing the sources other than to say know where they are coming from. I am not dismissing Reinko other than to say he posted them to support his point of view which is fine. If I had the time and the desire, I could find articles and sources that disputed his point of view.
-
Guns,
I don’t think anything is necessarily inaccurate. However, often times there are other factors and reasons for the conclusions that are not necessarily presented. If I told you Juan Anderson scored 20 points and gave no other information, you would say that was awesome. Would you feel the same way if I told you he took 40 shots, turned the ball over 10 times and MU lost by 20?
Knowing your sources and being an objective reader is a good thing. I am not dismissing the sources other than to say know where they are coming from. I am not dismissing Reinko other than to say he posted them to support his point of view which is fine. If I had the time and the desire, I could find articles and sources that disputed his point of view.
Well, this is really what I'm getting at.
I have no idea what Reinko's point of view is. Maybe it was shaped by the articles themselves. I don't know.
My point is that dismissing an article or person before you actually read or listen to them is part of the divisive problem we have in politics.
Just because a guy has a (d) or an (r) next to his name doesn't mean his ideas are necessarily good or bad (depending upon your perspective).
Not to get into a bigger rant, but this was part of the Nate Silver issue. Some conservatives refused to believe or even read his research because they thought he was some sort of liberal apologist, and therefore wrong.
A person can write/publish unbiased, dependable information... it's probably best to read it before we write it off as "leftist/right wing" biased.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/oRGJk.gif)
In before the lock.
(http://beerlake.net/dump/tng-in-before-lock.gif)
Can't leave out Star Trek. I'm also amazed this thread stayed on coarse as long as it did.
-
Well, this is really what I'm getting at.
I have no idea what Reinko's point of view is. Maybe it was shaped by the articles themselves. I don't know.
My point is that dismissing an article or person before you actually read or listen to them is part of the divisive problem we have in politics.
Just because a guy has a (d) or an (r) next to his name doesn't mean his ideas are necessarily good or bad (depending upon your perspective).
Not to get into a bigger rant, but this was part of the Nate Silver issue. Some conservatives refused to believe or even read his research because they thought he was some sort of liberal apologist, and therefore wrong.
A person can write/publish unbiased, dependable information... it's probably best to read it before we write it off as "leftist/right wing" biased.
Correct and I agree, but it goes both ways as you said. I also see liberals discounting conservatives just because they are conservatives. In fact, more so.
I think we can reasonably conclude what Reinkos point of view is:
“If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.”
I lived in Texas for a while and know first-hand their successes and failures. I think it is disingenuous to google a few articles supporting your point of view and only your point of view and post them as fact. And let me repeat, I am not writing anything off without reading it, but also be objective both ways.
-
Any coincidence that California and Illinois are consistently under Democratic "leadership," yet Texas is consistently under Republican leadership and has a thriving economy?
Hmm...but let's not let facts get in the way..
Actually, three of the last five Illinois governors were Republicans. Two of them - Thompson and Edgar - were really good. The third, George Ryan, is the guy who sent the state on a downward spiral. He began his administration with a $1 billion state surplus. When he left, the state had a $5 billion deficit. During most of his term, he had a Republican-controlled state Senate. Oh, and he was a crook who now sits in the federal pen.
Blago definitely made matters much worse, but let's not leave the GOP blameless for the state's fiscal mess. Many of the state's financial problems had their beginnings under a Republican governor and senate.
-
Are you referrin' to the Benz I earned or the Benz that I got because government is responsible for my success?
Yes.
-
Correct and I agree, but it goes both ways as you said. I also see liberals discounting conservatives just because they are conservatives. In fact, more so.
I think we can reasonably conclude what Reinkos point of view is:
“If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.”
I lived in Texas for a while and know first-hand their successes and failures. I think it is disingenuous to google a few articles supporting your point of view and only your point of view and post them as fact. And let me repeat, I am not writing anything off without reading it, but also be objective both ways.
Your ideology will cause you to see it this way. I try to read things from both "sides", but I believe there is a lot of cognitive dissonance coming from all sides.
-
Your ideology will cause you to see it this way. I try to read things from both "sides", but I believe there is a lot of cognitive dissonance coming from all sides.
How do you know my ideological lean? I guess you just did the same thing.
I do agree with you.
-
Correct and I agree, but it goes both ways as you said. I also see liberals discounting conservatives just because they are conservatives. In fact, more so.
I think we can reasonably conclude what Reinkos point of view is:
“If you are too lazy to read, your great state has one of the worst health care systems, highest poverty rates, some of the worst air to breathe in the country, your kids are fatter than most, and your state takes in more federal dollars than it pays, so enjoy MY tax dollars down there.”
I lived in Texas for a while and know first-hand their successes and failures. I think it is disingenuous to google a few articles supporting your point of view and only your point of view and post them as fact. And let me repeat, I am not writing anything off without reading it, but also be objective both ways.
That's fair, but it's also disingenuous to say this:
Any coincidence that California and Illinois are consistently under Democratic "leadership," yet Texas is consistently under Republican leadership and has a thriving economy?
Hmm...but let's not let facts get in the way..
And then we were off to the races with Renko providing some links (which might be awesome, or terrible, again, I have no idea).
As far as liberals dismissing conservatives and conservatives dismissing liberals, I would guess that it happens pretty evenly. I obviously have no way of qualifying that, but at a macro level, I believe the parties, their tactics and their membership are far more similar than either will ever care to admit.
I'm pretty middle ground and find myself refereeing some conversations amongst friends. The biggest issue I have with both sides is when they act like certain things are a matter of fact:
"You know big oil doesn't pay taxes" or "You know welfare doesn't work".
Clearly there is some truth to each statement, but neither is factual at all. It's the gray area and the details where people often miss the mark.
-
I think the payroll tax cut not getting extended is going to hurt the economy a lot more than people think. 2% may not seem much, but that 2% is going to come from discretionary income people use for vacations/car purchases/etc. Will be good for the credit card companies.
The payroll tax cut was so damn stupid to begin with. Let's take something that is broke (SS & Medicare) and cut a chunk of the funding out of it for 2 years. That'll fix it.
That said, it will hurt the economy big time, as that is something you get weekly/bi weekly, not in a lump sum in March or April like tax refunds.
-
The payroll tax cut was so damn stupid to begin with. Let's take something that is broke (SS & Medicare) and cut a chunk of the funding out of it for 2 years. That'll fix it.
That said, it will hurt the economy big time, as that is something you get weekly/bi weekly, not in a lump sum in March or April like tax refunds.
Well, making tax cuts placates the average person and gets politicians elected/re-elected, which is dumb and short-sighted.
I don't like paying ANY taxes... but if we are going to pay, let's at least pay the correct amount so we can actually operate the country efficiently.
-
Well, making tax cuts placates the average person and gets politicians elected/re-elected, which is dumb and short-sighted.
I don't like paying ANY taxes... but if we are going to pay, let's at least pay the correct amount so we can actually operate the country efficiently.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The dispute is over what is "the correct amount." I think we can agree that that is a subject upon which even very smart people can disagree vehemently.
As for the payroll tax, it's a relatively small price to pay to help address much larger problems. It'll cost the average worker less than $1,000. If the expected decline in oil prices comes through (knock on wood), that's not such an awful hit.
-
Sorry to ruin the gif and the movie... but Indy wasn't wearing the hat... someone threw it at him while he was diving under the door.
Cannot unsee
I think that's what makes the GIF good.
-
Yes.. EE going back to 6.2% will be felt even by the many, many Americans who pay zero federal income tax.
-
(Firstly? Is that a word?) Firstly, I didn’t say you were a Democrat, read more closely.
Second, Oil WAS a major part of the Texas economy, but the Texas economy is much more diversified now. Houston had a horrible oil crash in the 80’s but they recovered largely by having a more diversified economy. Houston is doing well now and it is not primarily because of the oil companies.
Also, travelling to Texas many times for business and to visit a friend does not make you an expert on the Texas economy.
Holy crap batman.
Yes, firstly is a word. Look it up, i suggest disctionary.com unless that too has a liberal bias.
Thanks again for saying the exact same thing as I did regarding the economy of Texas.
And at no point did I cleam to be an expert on the economy of Texas.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The dispute is over what is "the correct amount." I think we can agree that that is a subject upon which even very smart people can disagree vehemently.
As for the payroll tax, it's a relatively small price to pay to help address much larger problems. It'll cost the average worker less than $1,000. If the expected decline in oil prices comes through (knock on wood), that's not such an awful hit.
Right, and there's the rub.
A lot of dumb voters out there who like immediate results. If oil prices go down and taxes go down, then voters are "happy". They cannot conceptualize the long term impacts of cutting revenue but continuing to spend.
There are a lot of people out there with significant credit card debt because they can't understand this immediate gratification vs. long term benefit.
/old guy rant.
//I'm getting old.
-
Holy crap batman.
Yes, firstly is a word. Look it up, i suggest disctionary.com unless that too has a liberal bias.
Thanks again for saying the exact same thing as I did regarding the economy of Texas.
And at no point did I cleam to be an expert on the "ecomoy" of Texas.
just to set the record straight, this is what you wrote:
"Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil. And your fearless leader named Rick Perry, if he is anything like what he came across during the Republican primaries, is the biggest empty suit on the planet...which is exactly what big oil wants."
That is not true and no I did not say the same thing. Oil WAS important to the Texas economy, It is a small reason why it is thriving today.
-
That is not true and no I did not say the same thing. Oil WAS important to the Texas economy, It is a small reason why it is thriving today.
The oil industry accounts for 11 percent of the Texas economy, which actually is significantly up from where it was in the 1990s. By no measure is that small. It is by leaps and bounds the most important element of the state's economy.
For comparison's sake, Texas produces 6.2 percent of the agricultural output in the United States, yet agriculture makes up only .8 percent of the state's economy.
California produces by far the most agricultural products in the U.S. (17 percent of the total), and yet it makes up only 1.5 percent of the state's economy.
In Iowa, agriculture accounts for less than 7 percent of the state's economy.
So, yeah, 11 percent is a lot and oil is not a small reason for anything in Texas. Perhaps less so than in the 80s, but the state still lives and dies on the oil industry.
-
In before the lock. ;D
Go Warriors!!!
-
Sounds to me like the solution is to never elect someone from Texas, California, or Illinois GOP or Dem.
-
I showed up right around the time politics became verboten on this board.
I can see why that was a good choice now.
-
The oil industry accounts for 11 percent of the Texas economy, which actually is significantly up from where it was in the 1990s. By no measure is that small. It is by leaps and bounds the most important element of the state's economy.
For comparison's sake, Texas produces 6.2 percent of the agricultural output in the United States, yet agriculture makes up only .8 percent of the state's economy.
California produces by far the most agricultural products in the U.S. (17 percent of the total), and yet it makes up only 1.5 percent of the state's economy.
In Iowa, agriculture accounts for less than 7 percent of the state's economy.
So, yeah, 11 percent is a lot and oil is not a small reason for anything in Texas. Perhaps less so than in the 80s, but the state still lives and dies on the oil industry.
"Small reason" perhaps is not the correct term. Oil is still significant no doubt, however, the statement was made “Not sure Texas has a thriving economy but if they do it is for one reason -- Oil.” That is simply incorrect. Oil has always been there.
The Texas economy is growing and becoming more diversified with other industries. High tech is a huge growth segment in Texas as is manufacturing, health care and others. I don’t know where you are going with the agriculture numbers but ok.
Now I wish this thread would drive off a cliff.
-
I showed up right around the time politics became verboten on this board.
I can see why that was a good choice now.
The irony is that i come to this board to get away from the political crap. No more political stuff for me.
-
Now I wish this thread would drive off a cliff.
If you voted for a major-party candidate for any federal office in the last election, you're a gullible, moronic fool. Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter... you all elected a bunch of idiots who are truly representative of who you are.
To those who didn't vote: congratulations non-idiot, you let the idiots elect a bunch of idiots once again.
-
I'm more worried about the additional $3.9 to $4.6 trillion added in deficits over the next 10 years. It's absolutely staggering.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/275095-cbo-fiscal-cliff-deal-carries-4-trillion-price-tag
It makes the outrage of 2006 (which I was one screaming loudly then) look like child's play now. Sad, it's really the only word I can think of. Staggering and sad.
-
I'm more worried about the additional $3.9 to $4.6 trillion added in deficits over the next 10 years. It's absolutely staggering.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/275095-cbo-fiscal-cliff-deal-carries-4-trillion-price-tag
It makes the outrage of 2006 (which I was one screaming loudly then) look like child's play now. Sad, it's really the only word I can think of. Staggering and sad.
The above figures are based on the revenue that would have been generated over that period of time had all tax rates gone back to pre-Bush levels, correct?
It truly is hard to fathom how this problem is ever going to be solved. One solution: raise taxes sufficiently to generate some real revenue (as above) and cause a recession, which will exacerbate the deficit. Or: leave tax rates as-is, forgo the extra revenue, cut the hell out of government spending and cause a recession, which will exacerbate the deficit.
Gotta be a solution somewhere in the middle there, but it's gonna be a pain in the rear and nobody will be happy.
-
I'm more worried about the additional $3.9 to $4.6 trillion added in deficits over the next 10 years. It's absolutely staggering.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/275095-cbo-fiscal-cliff-deal-carries-4-trillion-price-tag
It makes the outrage of 2006 (which I was one screaming loudly then) look like child's play now. Sad, it's really the only word I can think of. Staggering and sad.
Well, you're correct in your dismay over the lack of spending cuts, something I sincerely hope is addressed in two months.
That said, the $4 trillion figure is a bit misleading, in that it's only relative to going over the fiscal cliff ... something nobody realistically believed would happen - at least not in the long term - and that few believed would be beneficial to the country's financial condition.
The hope now is that these goofs can come up with the cuts needed to at least come close to balancing this out.
From the story you linked:
The CBO price tag is based on a "current law" baseline, which assumes that all components of the "fiscal cliff" will take effect, which includes a wide range of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts. Neither party in Congress is seriously considered allowing those policies to take effect unaltered.
-
The above figures are based on the revenue that would have been generated over that period of time had all tax rates gone back to pre-Bush levels, correct?
It truly is hard to fathom how this problem is ever going to be solved. One solution: raise taxes sufficiently to generate some real revenue (as above) and cause a recession, which will exacerbate the deficit. Or: leave tax rates as-is, forgo the extra revenue, cut the hell out of government spending and cause a recession, which will exacerbate the deficit.
Gotta be a solution somewhere in the middle there, but it's gonna be a pain in the rear and nobody will be happy.
Or: temper spending and foster a robust economy through which revenues will exceed expenditures. It's not as far-fetched as it seems (see: the late 1990s).
-
Or: temper spending and foster a robust economy through which revenues will exceed expenditures. It's not as far-fetched as it seems (see: the late 1990s).
Well darn it Pakuni I think you just solved it!
Now how do you do that?
-
I am sure you can find a number of articles that support any argument. You are using some pretty liberal leaning publications that had an agenda of making Rick Perry look bad when he was running for president.
The only one that really made Rick Perry look bad was Rick Perry, and I'll give you three reasons why:
1. His debate skills rival those of a rhesus monkey.
2. He is easily tripped up by annoying things known as facts. (Um, Gov. Dopey, Turkey is our ally and isn't run by "Islamic terrorists.")
3. And let's see ... I can't ... The third one, I can't ... Sorry ... Oops.
-
Gotta be a solution somewhere in the middle there, but it's gonna be a pain in the rear and nobody will be happy.
Bingo. Public unions will never let it happen to protect their pensions. On the flip side, you'll continue to see underemployment and depression on wages elsewhere because corporations cannot withstand the costs of doing business without cutting or passing them on.
With the latest "deal", there are $43 in taxes increased for every $1 in spending cuts. https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/285974557783912448
For those historians,
“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”
-
Well darn it Pakuni I think you just solved it!
Now how do you do that?
I repeat .... see: the late 90s.
Relatively moderate tax increase on high earners, efforts to increase trade and boost exports, spending cuts and restraints, and a robust economy. All but the last - though certainly not least - item are within the government's purview. And, I would argue, would go a long way toward fostering the last item.
-
Or: temper spending and foster a robust economy through which revenues will exceed expenditures. It's not as far-fetched as it seems (see: the late 1990s).
Tough to temper spending when there are people that believe spending is the solution and the backbone of their ideology. Maybe WWIII is the key, like it was the last time to justify Keynesian economics.
-
Bingo. Public unions will never let it happen to protect their pensions. On the flip side, you'll continue to see underemployment and depression on wages elsewhere because corporations cannot withstand the costs of doing business without cutting or passing them on.
Greedy SOBs expecting they receive the benefits to which they were contractually and legally promised.
Public unions aren't the main problem with pensions, unless you consider people expecting what they were promised problematic.
Politicians who've raided and/or underfunded pensions so that they could spend the money elsewhere are the problem.
-
Well darn it Pakuni I think you just solved it!
Now how do you do that?
It's actually easy from a theoretical standpoint, because there is a ton of bloat and redundancy in the federal budget and you could see a lot of savings just from consolidation of services, streamlining of military procurement, and modernization of application of and reimbursement for medical services under medicare and medicaid.
From a political standpoint it is nearly impossible because no politician wants constituents to feel any pain, but they are going to have to, it's the only way it will work.
Staggering information, that I think Tom Coburn put out there, as of right now each US citizen is responsible for $15,000 of debt more than an equivalent Greek citizen. Additionally, we are currently at 121% debt of GDP and we are at historically low interest rates. If interest rates go up one percent in the next year, which would still be 3% BELOW historical averages, the cost to service the debt alone goes up roughly $16.7 billion in that year, calculating debt service is tricking because it's all variable rates, but it's a ball park average. If rates return to historical average the new tax hike for $400,000 and above would be entirely consumed by the debt service.
Revenue is needed, but the driver is spending, but no one wants to touch the spending.
-
I repeat .... see: the late 90s.
Relatively moderate tax increase on high earners, efforts to increase trade and boost exports, spending cuts and restraints, and a robust economy. All but the last - though certainly not least - item are within the government's purview. And, I would argue, would go a long way toward fostering the last item.
The late 1990's had the .com boom, as well. That is never going to be repeated again. That was a temporary gift that lead to irrational exuberance and a false economic bump. Not sure that is the date range I would use. It was also before terrorist attacks on the US.
-
Greedy SOBs expecting they receive the benefits to which they were contractually and legally promised.
Public unions aren't the main problem with pensions, unless you consider people expecting what they were promised problematic.
Politicians who've raided and/or underfunded pensions so that they could spend the money elsewhere are the problem.
I agree with you that they were promised, the problem is they shouldn't have been promised. If a corporation overpromises and can't come through they either negotiate a reduction, find another way to pay for it, or file bankruptcy. The workers are forced to work with the corporations to achieve mutual benefit because option 3 results in everybody loosing.
In the public sector, there is no such incentive for both sides to cooperate in difficult times. Yes politicians have essentially double counted, but, to mix metaphors, that die has been cast and we have to play the hand we are dealt. So they may have been promised but it's not something we can support any longer.
Lastly, I would love for someone to do the leg work of developing a federal budget from scratch. Current obligations and debt, then determine future spending and revenue and make sure they match. All this baselining off the current budget means bad data, bad assumptions, and bad budgeting. We need some to zero sum the federal budget.
-
Couple points regarding public pensions.
No one argues that people currently in the system should have their pension taken away. People do argue how much a public employee should pay each month, versus what the public entity should pay.
The other argument is with future public employees. Should they be converted to defined contribution programs? Should their retirement dates be adjusted?
-
The late 1990's had the .com boom, as well. That is never going to be repeated again. That was a temporary gift that lead to irrational exuberance and a false economic bump. Not sure that is the date range I would use. It was also before terrorist attacks on the US.
The people affected by the Oklahoma City bombing, embassy attacks in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the USS Cole attack and in the largely unsuccessful (fortunately) first WTC attack might beg to differ.
The .com boom was no more or less false than the housing boom of the 2000s or the defense spending boom of the 80s. False isn't really the correct word. Temporary, perhaps. But ain't that the definition of a boom?
-
Greedy SOBs expecting they receive the benefits to which they were contractually and legally promised.
Public unions aren't the main problem with pensions, unless you consider people expecting what they were promised problematic.
Politicians who've raided and/or underfunded pensions so that they could spend the money elsewhere are the problem.
They were promised by politicians that needed them to get into office. It's why FDR...FDR MIND YOU...FDR said public employee unions should not be legal. He was right. When you have the fox negotiated with themselves to cover the henhouse, you have major problems. "You give us ridiculous pensions, the ability to retire at age 50 on $100K a year pension and I'll give you the votes to stay in office to wash, rinse and repeat".
It is bankrupting this country, has already bankrupted 4 cities in California with more on the way.
I agree with you that the pensions have also been raided, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking what was promised could ever be achieved in the first place. Quid pro quo and we are dying as a result of it. Trillions in unfunded liabilities that are unfunded even without the raiding.
-
Lastly, I would love for someone to do the leg work of developing a federal budget from scratch. Current obligations and debt, then determine future spending and revenue and make sure they match. All this baselining off the current budget means bad data, bad assumptions, and bad budgeting. We need some to zero sum the federal budget.
I would just love if the Senate would merely pass a budget...which they are required to do by law. It's now been 3.5 years since we had a budget. Insanity.
-
Couple points regarding public pensions.
No one argues that people currently in the system should have their pension taken away. People do argue how much a public employee should pay each month, versus what the public entity should pay.
Define taken away.
Taken away entirely? No.
Reduced from what has been contractually (and in some cases constitutionally) pledged? Yes.
The other argument is with future public employees. Should they be converted to defined contribution programs? Should their retirement dates be adjusted?
Yes, that's also being discussed. But by and large, most public unions have gone along with reductions, in one form or another, for future workers. Even here in Illinois.
-
They were promised by politicians that needed them to get into office. It's why FDR...FDR MIND YOU...FDR said public employee unions should not be legal.
FDR said no such thing.
He was right. When you have the fox negotiated with themselves to cover the henhouse, you have major problems. "You give us ridiculous pensions, the ability to retire at age 50 on $100K a year pension and I'll give you the votes to stay in office to wash, rinse and repeat".
I'm not sure how things are in California, but the average public worker pension here in Illinois is less than $40,000. For a teacher, it's a whopping $45,000. And, keep in mind, these are people who get no Social Security.
The average public pension in Wisconsin is less than $25,000.
Trillions in unfunded liabilities that are unfunded even without the raiding.
Unfunded because legislators chose not to fund them.
-
In addition to the .com boom you had the productivity boom that came with these new technological capabilities and you had a once in century reduction in the number of people retiring due to the natural reduction in births at the end of the depression and the second world war. This caused a reduction in entitlement growth that was not seen at any other period and was the major reason for the narrowing of the budget deficits (massive amounts of Social Security money being counted as general revenue and lowering the deficit.
-
This seems to be the right moment to put out there that the federal budget is not really all that similar to a state budget.
The federal government is able to borrow at negative interest rates in the current economy and has monetary control. The risk that our government becomes insolvent is not even really worth talking about this point. The US has basically nothing in common with Greece and the European nations that are currently struggling.
All this state budget talk is very interesting, but it really has nothing to do with the fiscal cliff and isn't going to offer anything in the way of real insight on the issue.
-
The late 1990's had the .com boom, as well. That is never going to be repeated again. That was a temporary gift that lead to irrational exuberance and a false economic bump. Not sure that is the date range I would use. It was also before terrorist attacks on the US.
The 2000's had the housing boom. That is never going to be repeated again. The question you should be asking is what will be the boom in the 2010's that will never be repeated again?
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them... they just might not be exactly the same mistakes, though.
-
FDR said no such thing.
I'm not sure how things are in California, but the average public worker pension here in Illinois is less than $40,000. For a teacher, it's a whopping $45,000. And, keep in mind, these are people who get no Social Security.
The average public pension in Wisconsin is less than $25,000.
Unfunded because legislators chose not to fund them.
About 80% don't get Social Security, not 100%..but you make a good point. However, they are also not forced to pay into SS, either, which means they earn more upfront and the benefits are greater than SS. http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4523
The amounts of the pensions are also skewed because it is only recently that those with the biggest pensions are retiring and hammering the budgets. A teacher in California with 35 years in the system can retire at age 60 and expect to earn $87K per year. The amounts for other sectors is higher, north of $100K and being able to retire at 50.
On the FDR stuff, well it's been debated both ways. "FDR warned us about public sector unions" NY Times piece. "It is impossible to collectively bargain with the government" http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
Unfunded because legislators chose not to fund them and because the money doesn't exist to cover them anyway. It just doesn't exist at the levels they have been promised.
Good debate, glad everyone kept it civil.
-
The 2000's had the housing boom. That is never going to be repeated again. The question you should be asking is what will be the boom in the 2010's that will never be repeated again?
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them... they just might not be exactly the same mistakes, though.
Some of us were smart enough not to be taken in by the housing boom and buying more house than we could afford. It easily could have been done, but we didn't. That's part of the anger for having to bail out a bunch of idiots that bought $750K homes out here for nothing down and a $70K a year job. And yes, the blame goes to many...gov't, banks, lending institutions, buyers, etc. But as is typically the case, the person that goes slow and steady, keeps his nose out of trouble is usually the one left holding the bill.
-
On the FDR stuff, well it's been debated both ways. "FDR warned us about public sector unions" NY Times piece. "It is impossible to collectively bargain with the government" http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
FDR did say he was opposed to having to collectively bargain with public unions, but the context of that comment was in reference to dealing with his prior civilian Navy workers. Essentially he didn't believe people who worked in necessary government services should be allowed to walk off the job in a labor dispute. Up for interpretation if he would have extended that position to teachers and office clerks,
He was not opposed to the unions themselves, much less wanted them outlawed.
Unfunded because legislators chose not to fund them and because the money doesn't exist to cover them anyway. It just doesn't exist at the levels they have been promised.
I suppose we're going around in circles on this last point, but the reason the money doesn't exist is because the legislators have chosen to spend it elsewhere.
Here's a description of what's happening from a news source I think we can agree is not liberal. My favorite example is my home state's, which borrowed $10 billion to pay down pension obligations ... then proceeded to spend the money on anything but pension obligations:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/10/09/games-states-play-with-underfunded-pensions-665490505/
I don't disagree that there are some egregious examples of pension abuse out there, but by and large the issue is less one of the pensions being too high as it is one of lawmakers taste for spending elsewhere being too high.
-
(http://twitpic.com/brla1k/full)
-
The only one that really made Rick Perry look bad was Rick Perry, and I'll give you three reasons why:
1. His debate skills rival those of a rhesus monkey.
2. He is easily tripped up by annoying things known as facts. (Um, Gov. Dopey, Turkey is our ally and isn't run by "Islamic terrorists.")
3. And let's see ... I can't ... The third one, I can't ... Sorry ... Oops.
I won't disagree with you there. Not an impressive candidate. That has nothing to do with what the media does
-
I won't disagree with you there. Not an impressive candidate. That has nothing to do with what the media does
then why did you say this?
I am sure you can find a number of articles that support any argument. You are using some pretty liberal leaning publications that had an agenda of making Rick Perry look bad when he was running for president. CNN, NY Times, and 2 dot orgs. Not exactly organizations that I would trust to get unbiased information.
There are other factors that those articles will not tell you, like Texas has a huge Hispanic and illegal alien problem that skew the numbers. Air quality? There are many cities that have air quality issues for a number of reasons, L.A., Denver, Chicago.
-
then why did you say this?
I guess reading comprehension is not your thing. What does one comment have to do with the other. Do you think Perry's opponents would stop attacking him just because he already looks like a baffoon?
-
I guess reading comprehension is not your thing. What does one comment have to do with the other. Do you think Perry's opponents would stop attacking him just because he already looks like a baffoon?
It seemed clear you were blaming the media for "making Rick Perry look bad" in one post then saying it had nothing to do with the media in another, but whatever.
You might try to learn how to spell before criticizing others you "Baffoon" ::)
-
The 2000's had the housing boom. That is never going to be repeated again. The question you should be asking is what will be the boom in the 2010's that will never be repeated again?
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them... they just might not be exactly the same mistakes, though.
A good candidate for the next bubble is Natural Gas or the Fracking Bubble.
-
It seemed clear you were blaming the media for "making Rick Perry look bad" in one post then saying it had nothing to do with the media in another, but whatever.
You might try to learn how to spell before criticizing others you "Baffoon" ::)
Two separate thoughts. 1. Rick Perry not a good presidential candidate. The media has little to do with that. 2. The media is bias and can/will slant stories to further an agenda. They will do this regardless if the candidate is good or bad. I know it wasn’t clear, but it’s a MU basketball board not a PhD dissertation, plus I was typing on a smart phone with my knobby fingers.
Now I am finished with this annoying topic. I thought this would be locked by now.
-
A good candidate for the next bubble is Natural Gas or the Fracking Bubble.
In what respect are you talking about this being a bubble?
-
A good candidate for the next bubble is Natural Gas or the Fracking Bubble.
Honestly, I think athletics (college and pro) might be a good candidate.
TONS of $ moving around right now... and anytime that amount of $ starts moving without a lot of forethought, it makes me nervous.
We all assume there is a lot of forethought with all of the college moves, but I'm not so sure.
-
Honestly, I think athletics (college and pro) might be a good candidate.
TONS of $ moving around right now... and anytime that amount of $ starts moving without a lot of forethought, it makes me nervous.
We all assume there is a lot of forethought with all of the college moves, but I'm not so sure.
Completely agree on this assessment. Anytime a group starts thinking the gravy won't end or the paradigm won't change while moving around a ton of money is formula for a bubble.
Several factors at play, including, at some point American's are going to have to tighten their discretionary spending meaning fewer dollars for sports entertainment. Leagues are driving to develop more content to provide to the flood of sports networks being created and which are paying insane amounts of money to get that content. At some point the value of the content won't be equal to the money being spent on it and you'll see some networks shutter, collapsing the system. Lastly, especially with football, there is some concern around concussions that will impact that value/cost of football at all levels.
Interesting times.
-
Completely agree on this assessment. Anytime a group starts thinking the gravy won't end or the paradigm won't change while moving around a ton of money is formula for a bubble.
Several factors at play, including, at some point American's are going to have to tighten their discretionary spending meaning fewer dollars for sports entertainment. Leagues are driving to develop more content to provide to the flood of sports networks being created and which are paying insane amounts of money to get that content. At some point the value of the content won't be equal to the money being spent on it and you'll see some networks shutter, collapsing the system. Lastly, especially with football, there is some concern around concussions that will impact that value/cost of football at all levels.
Interesting times.
Yep, I agree completely.
The only thing that I'll add is that there could be a normal "market correction" scenario instead of a "bubble".
If a handful of new sports networks ultimately can't make it because they are paying too much for content and go out of business, that's not necessarily a bubble, that's more of a simple market correction (cost, supply, demand).
But, if the money being spent stops and causes major universities to have a financial crisis and/or cancellation of athletic programs, then we are getting into bubble bursting time. The ripples are huge and carry through multiple industries.
-
Yep, I agree completely.
The only thing that I'll add is that there could be a normal "market correction" scenario instead of a "bubble".
If a handful of new sports networks ultimately can't make it because they are paying too much for content and go out of business, that's not necessarily a bubble, that's more of a simple market correction (cost, supply, demand).
But, if the money being spent stops and causes major universities to have a financial crisis and/or cancellation of athletic programs, then we are getting into bubble bursting time. The ripples are huge and carry through multiple industries.
The Cleveland Indians selling off Sports Time Ohio to Fox Sports this week could be the beginning of that.
-
The Cleveland Indians selling off Sports Time Ohio to Fox Sports this week could be the beginning of that.
I'm not sure I'd put the sports industry on the list of potential bubbles because it's not something in which a significant amount of people are invested (unlike, say, housing or tech stocks), it doesn't employ a significant number of people (unlike the auto and housing industries) and, relative to other economic bubbles we're discussing, it makes up a small segment of the economy.
-
I'm not sure I'd put the sports industry on the list of potential bubbles because it's not something in which a significant amount of people are invested (unlike, say, housing or tech stocks), it doesn't employ a significant number of people (unlike the auto and housing industries) and, relative to other economic bubbles we're discussing, it makes up a small segment of the economy.
All of this is true, but remember things like tax payer funded stadiums (taxes that impact thousands), service industry bars/restaurants and their employees that depend on turnouts at stadium, stadium employees themselves...
-
All of this is true, but remember things like tax payer funded stadiums (taxes that impact thousands), service industry bars/restaurants and their employees that depend on turnouts at stadium, stadium employees themselves...
A few networks going out of business is a blip on the radar. But, if major teams/schools are suddenly missing a significant amount of revenue that they were counting on, then the dominoes start. That doesn't mean it will hit rock bottom (probably won't), but there is a lot of money betting on sports viewing right now. That's not without significant risk.
-
In what respect are you talking about this being a bubble?
The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon's Gas Boom
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301#ixzz2GwIg44k5
-
The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon's Gas Boom
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301#ixzz2GwIg44k5
Well that sub-headline makes it sound very unbiased...
Another, much briefer point of view. http://www.economist.com/node/21556249
-
A few networks going out of business is a blip on the radar. But, if major teams/schools are suddenly missing a significant amount of revenue that they were counting on, then the dominoes start. That doesn't mean it will hit rock bottom (probably won't), but there is a lot of money betting on sports viewing right now. That's not without significant risk.
You are also seeing a fair amount of hedge funds/investment groups moving in to sponsor teams, purchasing stock like MSG, etc.
I'm not chicken little here, but I think there is a chance 5-10 years from now the sports industry is going to go splap on the pavement. Too much money and too much interconnectedness and a lack of foresight on management's side makes for bubble opportunity.
-
I fully expect to have a natural gas bubble in a few minutes. Can feel my stomach starting to frack right now.
-
All of this is true, but remember things like tax payer funded stadiums (taxes that impact thousands), service industry bars/restaurants and their employees that depend on turnouts at stadium, stadium employees themselves...
In the grand scheme, you're still talking about a miniscule fraction of the population whose lives would be impacted by the implosion of professional sports. As for college sports, I would focus more on the former, less on the latter.
If I had to guess... post-secondary education is the next bubble that we won't ever repeat; specifically, the costs and debt loads. At some point, the gov't is simply not going to have the capacity (or desire) to continue to guarantee these loans as more students default.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g
-
The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon's Gas Boom
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301#ixzz2GwIg44k5
Full disclosure, I work in the industry (not directly in drilling). Reading those two articles I could point out at least 5 errors on the first page of each. Secondly, I am not sure what the bubble is other than people getting less from their mining rights than they initially thought. If anything shale gas has taken the bubble out of natural gas since NYMEX prices have stabilized at (what was previously thought) unbelievably low prices just 3-4 years ago. Natural Gas already had its bubble along with all other commodities in the financial collapse of '08.
-
In the grand scheme, you're still talking about a miniscule fraction of the population whose lives would be impacted by the implosion of professional sports. As for college sports, I would focus more on the former, less on the latter.
If I had to guess... post-secondary education is the next bubble that we won't ever repeat; specifically, the costs and debt loads. At some point, the gov't is simply not going to have the capacity (or desire) to continue to guarantee these loans as more students default.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g
I think there are a lot more people directly and indirectly impacted by sports from an economic standpoint, but I don't have any way to prove it, agree to disagree I guess.
I think you might have something on the student debt being a bubble, but it is really going to depend on timing. With the baby boomer generation starting to retire, regardless of all the new efficiencies in the workplace, there will have to be job openings for college graduates that should be sustainable for loan reduction. But it's all about timing and I don't see colleges looking for ways to reduce cost so the amount of debt will only go up.
-
I think the bubble in question is the gas industry says fracking gives a 100 yrs of gas reserves and other non-industry estimates put it at 19 yrs. Because it's so much cheaper tahn oil right now, usage is going up quickly. (Because electricity & oil are expensive, they are laying a ton of new gas lines here in Connecticut and the natural gas companies are switching people's boilers for free.) Probably the truth lies somewhere in between.
-
Full disclosure, I work in the industry (not directly in drilling). Reading those two articles I could point out at least 5 errors on the first page of each. Secondly, I am not sure what the bubble is other than people getting less from their mining rights than they initially thought. If anything shale gas has taken the bubble out of natural gas since NYMEX prices have stabilized at (what was previously thought) unbelievably low prices just 3-4 years ago. Natural Gas already had its bubble along with all other commodities in the financial collapse of '08.
+1 The only bubble is in the wages and rig rental rates in Midland/Odessa and Williston
-
...on to the next.
RL at $158.87 is BEGGING to be shorted this morning.
Money time, bros. Even though I'd participate more without the OUTRAGEOUS 20% RATE.
-
...on to the next.
RL at $158.87 is BEGGING to be shorted this morning.
Money time, bros. Even though I'd participate more without the OUTRAGEOUS 20% RATE.
SKOL, RL!!!
(Not sure what either is.)
-
SKOL, RL!!!
(Not sure what either is.)
SKOL is what vikings chant...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RL&ql=1 That is RL... Ralph Lauren.
-
I think the bubble in question is the gas industry says fracking gives a 100 yrs of gas reserves and other non-industry estimates put it at 19 yrs. Because it's so much cheaper tahn oil right now, usage is going up quickly. (Because electricity & oil are expensive, they are laying a ton of new gas lines here in Connecticut and the natural gas companies are switching people's boilers for free.) Probably the truth lies somewhere in between.
I actually think we are well over the 100 year supply as most of that discussion centers only on the contiguous United States. Not supporting one way or the other but the proposed drilling footprint in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) is the same footprint of the Cleveland airport. Alaska has oodles more of gas and oil. In terms of natural gas the U.S. is the King Kong of the world.
To me the real worry in terms of increasing prices for natural gas are 3-4 years down the road when more exportation terminals are scheduled to be approved/online to liquify the natural gas and begin exporting in far greater quantities around the world. Making it a global commodity just like oil, whereas in the US it is currently landlocked. Prices in US are currently in the $3.25/MMBtu range whereas the Asian countries the prices are well above $10/MMBtu creating a very large arbitrage opportunity if you can export that product.
-
SKOL is what vikings chant...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RL&ql=1 That is RL... Ralph Lauren.
I knew Skol was related to the vikings because of Jay-Bee. At least it is not as annoying as that damn horn they blow off seemingly every other play. I imagine shoving that horn someplace where a viking doesn't see sunlight
-
I actually think we are well over the 100 year supply as most of that discussion centers only on the contiguous United States. Not supporting one way or the other but the proposed drilling footprint in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) is the same footprint of the Cleveland airport. Alaska has oodles more of gas and oil. In terms of natural gas the U.S. is the King Kong of the world.
To me the real worry in terms of increasing prices for natural gas are 3-4 years down the road when more exportation terminals are scheduled to be approved/online to liquify the natural gas and begin exporting in far greater quantities around the world. Making it a global commodity just like oil, whereas in the US it is currently landlocked. Prices in US are currently in the $3.25/MMBtu range whereas the Asian countries the prices are well above $10/MMBtu creating a very large arbitrage opportunity if you can export that product.
Sounds like the biggest problem then is if & when we start exporting.
-
I knew Skol was related to the vikings because of Jay-Bee. At least it is not as annoying as that damn horn they blow off seemingly every other play. I imagine shoving that horn someplace where a viking doesn't see sunlight
thankfully they only seem to blow it on 1st downs and turnovers/scoring plays which really isn't that often the last few years ;D
-
Sounds like the biggest problem then is if & when we start exporting.
As an economics major, I don't really see any problem with exporting. Need to find the right supply/demand balance. And even prices rising to $5/6/MMBtu are not killers, the market had been at that level all through the early-mid 2000's before running up as the commodity bubble grew.
-
DECK up 4.30% to $39.55 this morning. Get at your boy.
DECK 47.35 1.57%
church
-
Decent day, but nothing spectacular. Trying to decide what to do with my largest holding.. DECK. Hate owning any stock at the moment, but had to jump in on it last month at ~$30 with that lovely balance sheet.
DECK up 4.30% to $39.55 this morning. Get at your boy.
DECK 47.35 1.57%
church
Good lawd. $68.
-
toot toot.
-
DECK up 4.30% to $39.55 this morning. Get at your boy.
DECK 47.35 1.57%
church
Good lawd. $68.
Nov 25 close... 81.64 +1.72 (2.15%)
Get at me, you jive turkeys.
-
You still on that train or profit taking about to commence?
-
That is an amazing return. Please tell me about your investments that didn't work out. :)
You kind of sound like my friend who only tells his friends about the bets he wins on. ;D
-
That is an amazing return. Please tell me about your investments that didn't work out. :)
You kind of sound like my friend who only tells his friends about the bets he wins on. ;D
Hmm.. if you look closer, I've only brought up a handful of stocks here. When I brought up DECK, it was sitting in the 30's.
You can ignore the facts. I realize your type hates Wall Street and "greed".
Chicos - It's overdone now. There are several interesting plays out there still, though.
I think I stated in a post several weeks ago that I was short WFM. Let me look... ah yes, October 7th.
If anyone is nervous and wants to short something for the upcoming weeks, WFM asking $59.45 in after hours; looks ripe for a tumble. Stock has gotten out ahead of itself.
It's at $56.12 now. Down only 5.6%. Of course over that same period of time when I recommended the WFM short, the NASDAQ (where it trades) has been up 6.0%.
WFM should still fall, but I wouldn't recommend either of these two at the moment.
I have continued to play with ARO from time to time. Put in an $8.09 limit order on 11/8. It's now at $10.21. A quick 26%.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
That is an amazing return. Please tell me about your investments that didn't work out. :)
You kind of sound like my friend who only tells his friends about the bets he wins on. ;D
Kinda like the year I won $250,000 at the dog track. I usually don't mention that I placed about $235,000 in bets - doesn't sound nearly as impressive when it's only $15,000. At least it was tax free.
-
Hmm.. if you look closer, I've only brought up a handful of stocks here. When I brought up DECK, it was sitting in the 30's.
You can ignore the facts. I realize your type hates Wall Street and "greed".
Chicos - It's overdone now. There are several interesting plays out there still, though.
I think I stated in a post several weeks ago that I was short WFM. Let me look... ah yes, October 7th.
It's at $56.12 now. Down only 5.6%. Of course over that same period of time when I recommended the WFM short, the NASDAQ (where it trades) has been up 6.0%.
WFM should still fall, but I wouldn't recommend either of these two at the moment.
I have continued to play with ARO from time to time. Put in an $8.09 limit order on 11/8. It's now at $10.21. A quick 26%.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Actually I have no problem with you doing we'll in the market. I wish I had the stones to make the stock picks I want, but something always comes up. New house, vacation, etc. thanks for lumping me in with a group though. classy.
-
Actually I have no problem with you doing we'll in the market. I wish I had the stones to make the stock picks I want, but something always comes up. New house, vacation, etc. thanks for lumping me in with a group though. classy.
You don't invest in equities because you take vacations instead of investing? That's cool if it works for you. Living check to check or extending your finances seems like a risky proposition to me, but lots do it.
-
You don't invest in equities because you take vacations instead of investing? That's cool if it works for you. Living check to check or extending your finances seems like a risky proposition to me, but lots do it.
hards, bro, what BeeJay is sayin is he needs $10 grand. He'll invest it for you. Then he'll show up at your cabin in the north woods with his hot, neck scarf wearin wife and creepy red-headed twin girls. Wackiness will ensue.
Remember, on BeeJay's wedding night, he was in the can when he heard you tell his old lady's dad that that BeeJay is one crooked son of a bitch.
-
You don't invest in equities because you take vacations instead of investing? That's cool if it works for you. Living check to check or extending your finances seems like a risky proposition to me, but lots do it.
I have plenty of money invested. It just seems like you play the market, and I choose to invest in more conservative things. I assure you, I don't live check to check... not by a long shot.
-
hards, bro, what BeeJay is sayin is he needs $10 grand. He'll invest it for you. Then he'll show up at your cabin in the north woods with his hot, neck scarf wearin wife and creepy red-headed twin girls. Wackiness will ensue.
Remember, on BeeJay's wedding night, he was in the can when he heard you tell his old lady's dad that that BeeJay is one crooked son of a bitch.
Just make sure that when he asks you to eat the Old 96er, he's talking about a steak.