Obama

[mikem12]

Last you heard, eh? Would love to peek into that crystal ball you have. :lol:

 

 

dare I say it, I listen to Bloomberg, WSJ and Fox business news. I figure they all can't be wrong.

 

I stay away from CNN or on of turner's channels.

[retro-man]

A net tax consumer is anyone who doesn't pay income taxes. Spout all your statistics you want about States. I'm talking individuals. I'm talking people who would be all too happy to have the government take (by force) that which someone has worked for and earned for themselves. That would be a significant portion of the Obama electorate.

 

You really don't like it when successful people make money do you? Especially if they make more than what you deem reasonable or fair. It's just not FAIR that so-and-so makes so much!

 

Like it or not, you need people like that. They're the ones paying full (up to the max) Social Security taxes, most of the income taxes, and a huge portion of the other payroll/property taxes so other people (maybe you?) can reap the rewards of society that were paid by someone else.

 

Save your responses for those who will listen. Once the party is over, the pain will be felt by everyone. But maybe that's the point. Spread the misery.

Ranger, you're generally a reasonable person, you make many valid points in your posts. Yes, a person should have the right to keep what they earn. Yes, a free market should establish the fair value of goods and services. But, with rights come responsibilities, and the free market isn't free. Everybody on here knows that. We all have our certain hot buttons on here: with fmccap it's fiat currency, with bored of pisteon, it's not giving a rat's ass what anybody thinks, and with me its the touchy-feely moral issues: I have seen in this country a creeping moral rot - and I'm not talking about abortion or welfare, or obscene hip-hop lyrics: I'm talking about the legitimization - nay, the celebration - of greed. Like it or not, it started in the 80s under Reagan (it sure as hell wasn't Carter who got the greed ball rolling), and was well represented in pop culture - usually a pretty accurate mirror of underlying social trends - by "Dallas" and "Dynasty", and in the news by such figures as Michael Milken and "Chainsaw" Al Dunlop. This is the flip side of the culture of personal responsibility: it is taken by far too many to mean responsibility to no one or no thing other than one's own self. You see plenty of that attitude on this board. This deep moral rot has pervaded our society, starting in the 80s. I have not heard a single word from the conservative side on this, not a peep, nor a single word of advice for counteracting it. So now, you're all upset when we are looking down the barrel of a new New Deal. Well you know as well as I do that 28 years of "trickle-down" economics - i.e. redistribution of wealth toward the top (statistics bear this out full well) - what Poppy Bush called "voodoo economics" - culminating in 8 years of 'W' more than anything else has made the current situation possible. Bush made Obama possible. Reagan made Bush possible. Trickle down is over and it didn't work. None of the buzzwords and catch phrases and principals that represented that failed ideology are going to have traction again for a long long time - not until collective amnesia and the ignorance of history set in again. You're going to have quite a wait.

 

I would love to see the Republican party get their shit together again - but from the nomination of 'W' to the selection of Palin, it's just been one long "WTF!?!?" and you know I'm right on that. Good luck the next four years.

Edited March 5, 2009 by retro-man

[RangerM]

{deleted for space}

In your post, you have the phrase...

redistribution of wealth toward the top

Where did that wealth come from? Who is redistributing it? By what means is wealth being redistributed to the top?

 

Here's where we diverge in our outlook. Wealth, as I see it, is the result of acquisition of money/property through legal means such as working or investing.

 

Your statement (to me) presupposes three things:

 

1. The Government is the controller of who accumulates wealth.

2. The recipients of such wealth would not be, were the Government not distributing it to them.

3. Wealth is not the property of those who accumulate it, nor is it their right to accumulate it,

because they do nothing to accumulate it.

 

I'm not intending to defend greed (or be critical of you) in my post, but we must be very careful when we accept the assumption that those who accumulate wealth, or are paid high incomes, are somehow undeserving of it, regardless of how hard they worked for it.

 

Sure, there are scumbags at the top (witness Madoff), but being a scoundrel is not limited to the wealthy.

 

We are witnessing the demonization of all (regardless of circumstance) achievers in our society. It is wrong. Witness Obama's proposed new limitation on charitible giving. Is that really a value we share? We'd rather the Government confiscate the money, rather than promote charitible giving? Is this the anti-greed?

 

Everyday we hear of more and new proposals by this Administration, and everyday it's getting scarier.

[retro-man]

In your post, you have the phrase...

 

Where did that wealth come from? Who is redistributing it? By what means is wealth being redistributed to the top?

 

Here's where we diverge in our outlook. Wealth, as I see it, is the result of acquisition of money/property through legal means such as working or investing.

 

Your statement (to me) presupposes three things:

 

1. The Government is the controller of who accumulates wealth.

2. The recipients of such wealth would not be, were the Government not distributing it to them.

3. Wealth is not the property of those who accumulate it, nor is it their right to accumulate it,

because they do nothing to accumulate it.

 

I'm not intending to defend greed (or be critical of you) in my post, but we must be very careful when we accept the assumption that those who accumulate wealth, or are paid high incomes, are somehow undeserving of it, regardless of how hard they worked for it.

 

Sure, there are scumbags at the top (witness Madoff), but being a scoundrel is not limited to the wealthy.

 

We are witnessing the demonization of all (regardless of circumstance) achievers in our society. It is wrong. Witness Obama's proposed new limitation on charitible giving. Is that really a value we share? We'd rather the Government confiscate the money, rather than promote charitible giving? Is this the anti-greed?

 

Everyday we hear of more and new proposals by this Administration, and everyday it's getting scarier.

You're being disingenuous (and I'm being kind). Government sets laws affecting commerce and tax policy. For instance, we allow deductions for children, or for mortgage interest. These policies and laws have clear social and economic effects. As I pointed out, George H. W. Bush took a look at Reagan's proposed "trickle down" economic policies and called it "voodoo economics" (his point being that the money would never end up where it needed to go without some sort of voodoo magic to make it happen). He was right on that. (He was also right on marching to Baghdad, but that off-the-books expense is subject for another thread.) So yes, to a large degree, the government is the controller of who accumulates wealth. Always has been and still is. If it were not, Jefferson and Madison would have had nothing to talk about. If it were not, you wouldn't be so worried about which party is in power or what their policies are. My point is not that people don't have the right to accumulate wealth. They do. My point is that, with rights - in a moral and civil society - come responsibilities: like probity - a basic sense of decency and the will to do what is right without being forced to. In an ideal world, this would not have to be legislated. In the real world, evidently it does, or the pigs go to the the trough and party on for 30 years.

 

The right makes a big deal about how socialism ignores the realities of human instinct: "If someone can get paid without working, why would anybody work?" (which question, to me, says as much about the morals of the person asking it as it does about the morals of the proverbial welfare queen). Well, conservative philosophy is every bit as ignorant about human nature when it comes to the propensity of fallible humans for unbridled greed and the ultimate social and economic damage that leads to. Which is where we are at now.

[NickF1011]

dare I say it, I listen to Bloomberg, WSJ and Fox business news. I figure they all can't be wrong.

 

I stay away from CNN or on of turner's channels.

 

Hmm, I haven't heard any of those sources saying Dow 3000 is any sort of concensus. Is it possible? Sure. Some think it. I don't. And well, even if it does happen, it still really doesn't affect me. It'll be back up sooner or later by the time it matters to my situation.

[mikem12]

Hmm, I haven't heard any of those sources saying Dow 3000 is any sort of concensus. Is it possible? Sure. Some think it. I don't. And well, even if it does happen, it still really doesn't affect me. It'll be back up sooner or later by the time it matters to my situation.

 

 

it has me, almost 30% of my 401 gone. it was time to make a change.

[NickF1011]

it has me, almost 30% of my 401 gone. it was time to make a change.

 

My 401K has held steady. Naturally, that's also counting my contributions and company matching, so realistically it's down. But hey, I'm not tapping my 401K for another 25+ years, so it's got plenty of time to recover. Of course, not all of my 401K is going only to stock, so there's some balance built in there. And I still have a somewhat significant cash position that is generating decent interest at the moment.

[mikem12]

My 401K has held steady. Naturally, that's also counting my contributions and company matching, so realistically it's down. But hey, I'm not tapping my 401K for another 25+ years, so it's got plenty of time to recover. Of course, not all of my 401K is going only to stock, so there's some balance built in there. And I still have a somewhat significant cash position that is generating decent interest at the moment.

 

 

I was doing exactly the same, but still managed to lose near 12K, if I take out the deductions it would pretty much double.

 

 

I will ride it out in interest income for awhile.

[NickF1011]

I was doing exactly the same, but still managed to lose near 12K, if I take out the deductions it would pretty much double.

 

Yeeowtch. Can't blame you for being a bit skittish then. Guess our fund managers are thus far doing a bang-up job! Kudos.

Edited March 5, 2009 by NickF1011

[Bored of Pisteon]

 

I'm not making this up! Coming from the makers of "Chia Pet" IT'S CHIA OBAMA!

Edited March 5, 2009 by Bored of Pisteon

[NickF1011]

I'm not making this up! Coming from the makers of "Chia Pet" IT'S CHIA OBAMA!

 

I sense a return of the 1978 afro craze coming on.

[Bored of Pisteon]

I sense a return of the 1978 afro craze coming on.

 

I kid you not, I just checked on Amazon.com and the release that for those is you guessed it... APRIL 1ST, 2009.

[Bored of Pisteon]

[sprinter]

Promises, promises

 

From a teacher in the Nashville area

 

We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"

 

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third

grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the

children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a

class president.

 

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the

class would vote.

 

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We

got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run

for the top spot.

 

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were

good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of

parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

 

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He

had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by

promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia

came to the podium.

 

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give

you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice

cream."

 

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How

did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents

buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really

didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

 

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.

 

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and

fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice

cream.

 

 

 

The other forty-eight percent know they're going to have to feed

the cow and clean up the crap.

[RangerM]

You're being disingenuous (and I'm being kind). Government sets laws affecting commerce and tax policy. For instance, we allow deductions for children, or for mortgage interest. These policies and laws have clear social and economic effects.

Of course, the government implements laws with socio-economic influence in mind. If I recall, I've advocated getting rid of this entirely through the FairTax. As a conservative, I don't think it's the federal government's role to implement change on the basis of some social benefit. If the States, through their electorate, votes to promote certain social benefits, that's fine with me, but only at the State level.

As I pointed out, George H. W. Bush took a look at Reagan's proposed "trickle down" economic policies and called it "voodoo economics" (his point being that the money would never end up where it needed to go without some sort of voodoo magic to make it happen). He was right on that. (He was also right on marching to Baghdad, but that off-the-books expense is subject for another thread.) So yes, to a large degree, the government is the controller of who accumulates wealth. Always has been and still is. If it were not, Jefferson and Madison would have had nothing to talk about. If it were not, you wouldn't be so worried about which party is in power or what their policies are.

No doubt that what you say is true (in a certain sense) that the government sets the stage that some may benefit more than others at a given time, but if it's not right in one direction, it's not right in the other.

 

However, I still don't believe that government confiscates from the poor to give to the rich. How else would one interpret "redistribution of wealth to the top"? At no time have I ever heard a statistic that says the lower-than-average income pay more taxes (in total) compared to the upper income earners, have you?

 

My point is not that people don't have the right to accumulate wealth. They do. My point is that, with rights - in a moral and civil society - come responsibilities: like probity - a basic sense of decency and the will to do what is right without being forced to. In an ideal world, this would not have to be legislated. In the real world, evidently it does, or the pigs go to the the trough and party on for 30 years.

 

I agree that a person in a position of priviledge has a certain duty to set an example for others, who may strive to achieve the same. But I don't lump all wealthy individuals together. I see people as individuals, not part of a group. For instance, what is it about $250,000 that is magical? If I make $249,999, I'm the average Joe (in the eyes of the democrats), but if I make $250,001, I've become something else. It does not make sense to me. And if this number today signifies the threshold of excess, what number will it be tomorrow?

 

That is where I differ from most liberals. There is no honor in being poor OR rich. People are either decent and trustworthy, or they are not. I'm not prepared to pit one group against another. It only serves to divide.

The right makes a big deal about how socialism ignores the realities of human instinct: "If someone can get paid without working, why would anybody work?" (which question, to me, says as much about the morals of the person asking it as it does about the morals of the proverbial welfare queen). Well, conservative philosophy is every bit as ignorant about human nature when it comes to the propensity of fallible humans for unbridled greed and the ultimate social and economic damage that leads to. Which is where we are at now.

 

And the left somehow has decided that greed is the worst of the seven deadly sins, while relishing in others; lust, pride, wrath, and envy.

 

What can it be other than envy, when a person can justify taking from another (by force), for his own benefit? You really think that most democrats want for society or themselves? Need I remind you of "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage"? How would you characterize that, greed or envy. I can make a case for both.

 

Your average gay pride parade is completely acceptable, and even promoted, by the left. I consider it none of my business, yet it is somehow right that I be forced to observe it on my street. Lust and pride imbrued on my person, against my will.

 

And while telling me that I'm a liar (disingenuous), when all I'm trying to do is to get people (ALL people, rich and poor alike) to stop blaming other people for their lot in life, seems like wrath to me. I have nothing against you. I'm sure you believe what you do with great conviction, and I'm happy for you, but rather than accept that it's better to accept people for who they are, you infer they are ignorant if they don't believe as you do. I apologize if I've been too harsh, but my convictions run as deep as yours.

Edited March 6, 2009 by RangerM

[Roadtrip]

The "legitimization, nay, celebration of greed" - all dating back to Reagan.

 

Greed, greed, greed. Yeah, right...

 

When it comes to greed, we never hear complaints from liberals about how billionaire George Soros (and major contributor to leftist organizations such as MoveOn.org) made his fortune by devaluing the currencies of developing countries, how Senator John Kerry "married up" by wedding himself to the heiress to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, how Hillary Rodham Clinton was able to turn $1,000 into $100,000 by investing in cattle futures via an inside source, or the dubious nature of the Kennedy fortune.

 

When it comes to greed, we rarely hear complaints from liberals about the excesses of the middle-and-lower ranks of society, like when they live outside their means by buying homes they can't afford, like when they extend their revolving credit too far, like when they find themselves broke - and yet when they've extendend themselves too far, they feel entitled to such things as mortgage cram-downs, free healthcare, all while demanding more and more from the government.

 

When it comes to greed, ordinary people who invest their retirement savings in mutual funds via retirement accounts as a means to beat inflation can be considered greedy, as are individuals who invest money into small businesses in order to prosper.

 

Greed, greed, greed. Anyone who ever opened up a lemonade stand, or applied for a job, can be charged with self interest - in other words, being greedy. The horror!

 

The natural human inclination for greed goes back far beyond the years of Reagan Administration; it's a basic human inclination going back eons. Moreover, it spans the entire political spectrum, from left to right.

 

Blaming the financial crisis on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.

[Savetheplanet]

The natural human inclination for greed goes back far beyond the years of Reagan Administration; it's a basic human inclination going back eons. Moreover, it spans the entire political spectrum, from left to right.

 

Blaming the financial crisis on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.

 

By definition I can't see how greed is good.

 

Definition---------Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism

[retro-man]

Inflation adjusted percentage increase in mean after-tax household income between 1979 and 2005

 

 

Distribution of household income in the United States of America from 1967 through 2003.

 

 

We are broke because we tolerated trade deficits for 30 years. The fiction was promoted that this didn't matter. The fiction was promoted that we could prosper with a service economy. The fiction was promoted that we could prosper with an information economy. The fiction was promoted that we can prosper without producing any material good. Between 1960 and 2000 International trade went from 3% of our GDP to 33%, as we compelled our workers to compete on an open market with people from countries with 1/10 the wages, no labor or environmental standards. This combination of a huge readily available pool of cheap labor and a prosperous consumer society (hereinafter known as "the golden goose"), produced ever increasing profits as production was shifted offshore and cheap labor was brought within our borders. This led to rising share prices, which led to increased personal wealth - particularly for the top 10% of American households that control 83.1% of privately held stock wealth, and even more so the top 1%, which controls 37.4%. In short, the wealthy had an active interest in beggaring the American middle class.

 

As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980."

 

"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution. ~ Timothy Smeeding (professor economics and public administration Syracuse University)

 

Is that the kind of society we want to build? Russia and Turkey? Because that's exactly what we have been doing by tolerating these trends. Years ago, on this very forum, while promoting the idea of buying American, I stated that "One day we're going to wake up and find that we've been buying and selling a butt load of jack diddly squat." Here we are. At the time I was thinking it would be the stock market (I still think we're probably hosed on the 401Ks) - I'll admit I didn't foresee the real estate bubble.

 

For decades we pulled more eggs out of the golden goose by working more hours, surrendering more benefits, letting our infrastructure go to pot, putting more spouses to work, and taking on increasing levels of debt as the real prosperity built on the backs of our grandfathers was sold out from under us. And now the golden goose is dead. We do not have the ability to re-activate China's manufacturing sector (or Korea's or Japan's), nor to start that of some other even lower labor market. Game over. But a small handful of people got fabulously wealthy making it happen. I know I sound sanctimonious sometimes, but I will not apologize for calling these appalling trends wrong, or for pointing out where they come from.

 

But I repeat myself. I leave the last word on this to others.

Edited March 6, 2009 by retro-man

[Critic]

When it comes to greed, we never hear complaints from liberals about how billionaire George Soros (and major contributor to leftist organizations such as MoveOn.org) made his fortune by devaluing the currencies of developing countries, how Senator John Kerry "married up" by wedding himself to the heiress to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, how Hillary Rodham Clinton was able to turn $1,000 into $100,000 by investing in cattle futures via an inside source, or the dubious nature of the Kennedy fortune.

 

Why did you leave out McClain?

[RaZor]

Because Ditto-heads screen out any information contrary to their ideology?

[mikem12]

 

I'm not making this up! Coming from the makers of "Chia Pet" IT'S CHIA OBAMA!

 

 

not that's funny. I don't care who you are.

[fmccap]

Inflation adjusted percentage increase in mean after-tax household income between 1979 and 2005

 

 

Distribution of household income in the United States of America from 1967 through 2003.

 

 

We are broke because we tolerated trade deficits for 30 years. The fiction was promoted that this didn't matter. The fiction was promoted that we could prosper with a service economy. The fiction was promoted that we could prosper with an information economy. The fiction was promoted that we can prosper without producing any material good. Between 1960 and 2000 International trade went from 3% of our GDP to 33%, as we compelled our workers to compete on an open market with people from countries with 1/10 the wages, no labor or environmental standards. This combination of a huge readily available pool of cheap labor and a prosperous consumer society (hereinafter known as "the golden goose"), produced ever increasing profits as production was shifted offshore and cheap labor was brought within our borders. This led to rising share prices, which led to increased personal wealth - particularly for the top 10% of American households that control 83.1% of privately held stock wealth, and even more so the top 1%, which controls 37.4%. In short, the wealthy had an active interest in beggaring the American middle class.

How does it look if the government was fiscally responsible during those times and didn't run up a enormous deficit during the last 30 years??

 

I understand what you are saying and have many of the same feelings but I wonder if we are placing the blame in the wrong place. What would it look like with a 90% lower deficit which all came from the government? Would we of had this huge bubble if interest rates were left to the free market and not controlled by the Federal Reserve?

[suv_guy_19]

How does it look if the government was fiscally responsible during those times and didn't run up a enormous deficit during the last 30 years??

 

I understand what you are saying and have many of the same feelings but I wonder if we are placing the blame in the wrong place.

 

Government is the people....or at least it should be. We decide who gets to run the country and what decisions we like and don't. You cannot place blame on a government without placing blame on the people who elected the people that run the government.

[fmccap]

Government is the people....or at least it should be. We decide who gets to run the country and what decisions we like and don't. You cannot place blame on a government without placing blame on the people who elected the people that run the government.

I do blame the people also, the apathy of the American people is a disgrace.

 

The FACT still remains that you can blame the government. There was no support for the first banker bailout yet it was rushed through even though the people didn't like it.

[suv_guy_19]

There was no support for the first banker bailout yet it was rushed through even though the people didn't like it.

 

Sometimes the people are wrong. I can't even imagine where we would be today if those banks had been allowed to collapse.