It's the economy stupid!

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Another "cut and paste."

=====================================
Wednesday, April 09, 2003.


Major Market Indexes Close Change
----------------------------------------------
Nasdaq Composite 1,356.74 -26.20
S & P 500 865.99 -12.30
DJIA 8,197.94 -100.98
Russell 2000 372.28 -2.38
=====================================

Let's see what tomorrow brings.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote by BOBDN

Who ever said I attended academy? My private education was at a religious institution. Then a specialized public high school. Then on to college.

I know the area well. I drove here for 30 years.

"Pop Goes the Weasel" used to drive me nuts until I installed a pair of weather proof Bose speakers outside.

You're right, I've decided to stop trying to teach the pig to fly. Sounds of Silence - sounds like the Democrats right now. A Bridge Over Troubled Waters is about right on the economy.

I came upon these forums as you did. Looking to discuss technology. I came upon this forum. Seems everyone is talking about the war! I stay away from forums like this but decided to participate with one caveat, I wouldn't argue with anyone. I'd keep my cool. Time to get back to that idea. No use arguing with people who wont admit the truth when it's right under their nose.[/quote]

I grew up in NYC and left when I joined the service. I went to St. John's Villa Academy, didn't everyone?

But my little grandmother who raised me came from a farm in Ireland to do it had more horse sense than anyone I know and never spent a day in school. She often said "Sinn Fein" (ourselves alone)

I don't know enough about technology, well... enough to be semi conversant. I wanted to be sure I wasn't making a mistake but after four posts I gave up.
And then I saw and heard the unbelievable.... Oink-Flap, Oink-Flap, Oink-Flap.... That drew my interest and then your mispost on the "War" thread that came as a link here.
What some refer to as drivel is informed opinion, slanted at times toward one side or another but even so there are truths within that enable extrapolation of thought. If we were "informed" we also may be a propounder of information and we are and ought to be sharing what we know and tearing apart, with facts, the biased opinions to result in the reality that would enable us to more prudently go about our daily lives. If nothing else we learn a bit more each time we read and digest what someone else has taken the time to share.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76


Republicans argue Bush's plan will boost stock prices, create jobs and generate more revenues for the U.S. Treasury.

Democrats argue it was Bush's last round of tax cuts in 2001 that started the recent steep slide in the U.S. fiscal position and say the new cuts will make a bad situation worse.

Complicating the debate is the need to raise the federal debt ceiling for the second time since Bush signed a previous $1.35 trillion tax cut into law in 2001. The government's credit limit was last raised in June 2002 to $6.4 trillion but the U.S. Treasury says it will need another increase soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steep slide in US fiscal position. Debt limit raised to $6.4 TRILLION. Need to raise the debt ceiling a second time. Hmmm.[/quote]

Two sides of well informed folks not seeing the same picture as being what it is. OK. This calls for a bit of Street University Smarts...
Remember The Darmen confirmation hearings in the Senate... if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck it ain't a chihuahua.. or something like that. How will the tax cut do what the Rebublicans say it will do? And another non denial denial by the Republican folks about when the steep slide occured. Well.... any takers?

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
I grew up in NYC and left when I joined the service. I went to St. John's Villa Academy, didn't everyone?

But my little grandmother who raised me came from a farm in Ireland to do it had more horse sense than anyone I know and never spent a day in school. She often said "Sinn Fein" (ourselves alone)

I don't know enough about technology, well... enough to be semi conversant. I wanted to be sure I wasn't making a mistake but after four posts I gave up.
And then I saw and heard the unbelievable.... Oink-Flap, Oink-Flap, Oink-Flap.... That drew my interest and then your mispost on the "War" thread that came as a link here.
What some refer to as drivel is informed opinion, slanted at times toward one side or another but even so there are truths within that enable extrapolation of thought. If we were "informed" we also may be a propounder of information and we are and ought to be sharing what we know and tearing apart, with facts, the biased opinions to result in the reality that would enable us to more prudently go about our daily lives. If nothing else we learn a bit more each time we read and digest what someone else has taken the time to share.

I grew up in New Jersey. Attended parochial school and a public high school with limited enrollment. They tested students and chose from the top 10%. It was a very good experience coming from the strict order of the parochial school system to the comparative freedom of public schools.

I was raised under much the same circumstance as you. My little Italian mother raised the four of us alone, working six days a week.

I referred to some of the posts attacking my ideas as drivel. I did so because the very people who use their "informed opinion" to attack me insist on facts to back up my informed opinions. When I provide facts they attack me. This has become common practice and suffices for debate among the Fox, Rush, O'Reilly crowd.

They attack anyone who disagrees with them as "liberal puppets." They ask for proof of every opinion. When proof is given the ignore the proof and attack the person. This pisses me off. If their opinions suffice then my opinion should be sufficient. In their minds they need no facts to back their ideas. I do. So I provide facts to defend my opinion. They ignore the facts. Still they continue to operate solely on their own biased opinions. Let them provide some information to back up their opinions. This is why I referred to them as drivel. I asked repeatedly for information to refute the information I posted. They offered none other than their own biased opinions and personal attacks. Drivel.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote by BOBDN

I referred to some of the posts attacking my ideas as drivel. I did so because the very people who use their "informed opinion" to attack me insist on facts to back up my informed opinions. When I provide facts they attack me. This has become common practice and suffices for debate among the Fox, Rush, O'Reilly crowd.

They attack anyone who disagrees with them as "liberal puppets." They ask for proof of every opinion. When proof is given the ignore the proof and attack the person. This pisses me off. If their opinions suffice then my opinion should be sufficient. In their minds they need no facts to back their ideas. I do. So I provide facts to defend my opinion. They ignore the facts. Still they continue to operate solely on their own biased opinions. Let them provide some information to back up their opinions. This is why I referred to them as drivel. I asked repeatedly for information to refute the information I posted. They offered none other than their own biased opinions and personal attacks. Drivel.[/quote]

Your posts are informative and provide the basis on which a debate COULD occur. Your posts are by no means drivel! IF we wish to maximize the value of our time we would be trying to show how this referenced person or article is wrong and therefore, they or it do or does not support the point you make. Cutting and pasting IS work and providing the actual link allows the reader to verify what you post as back up.
IF you wrote that the economy started fluttering in Q1 2001 without any source material I would think it was baseless unless I also and independently agreed base on what I considered reliable sources. Each time you have posted something I went a looking to see If Your sources were in sync with mine. I've agreed your sources with mine except when you quote a Paul Volker who like Greenspan is hard to agrue against.
If at the end of the day all roads point to Rome then taking any one of them lead you to the same conclusion.
Listen for the sound of the flaming pidgeon... Oink- Flap, Oink- Flap.... and throw cumbs or bird sead.. they have a hard time digesting much more.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
I read the Motley Fool in the Star Ledger. I signed up at the web site. Thanks HJD.

Another "cut and paste."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spoils of War
By BOB HERBERT


Follow the money.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor in the U.S. and one of the finalists in the competition to land a fat contract to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

He is also the chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war group with close ties to the White House. The committee, formed last year, made it clear from the beginning that it sought more than the ouster of Saddam's regime. It was committed, among other things, "to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy."

War is a tragedy for some and a boon for others. I asked Mr. Shultz if the fact that he was an advocate of the war while sitting on the board of a company that would benefit from it left him concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it," he said. "But if there's work that's needed to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But nobody looks at it as something you benefit from."

Jack Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel. He's also a member of the Defense Policy Board, a government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon on major defense issues. Its members are selected by the under secretary of defense for policy, currently Douglas Feith, and approved by the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Most Americans have never heard of the Defense Policy Group. Its meetings are classified. The members disclose their business interests to the Pentagon, but that information is not available to the public.

The Center for Public Integrity, a private watchdog group in Washington, recently disclosed that of the 30 members of the board, at least 9 are linked to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002.

Richard Perle was the chairman of the board until just a few weeks ago, when he resigned the chairmanship amid allegations of a conflict of interest. He is still on the board.

Another member is the former C.I.A. director, James Woolsey. He's also a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture capital firm that, as the Center for Public Integrity noted, is soliciting investments for companies that specialize in domestic security. Mr. Woolsey is also a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq and is reported to be in line to play a role in the postwar occupation.

The war against Iraq has become one of the clearest examples ever of the influence of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against so eloquently in his farewell address in 1961. This iron web of relationships among powerful individuals inside and outside the government operates with very little public scrutiny and is saturated with conflicts of interest.

Their goals may or may not coincide with the best interests of the American people. Think of the divergence of interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually fighting this war, who have been eating sand and spilling their blood in the desert, and the power brokers who fought like crazy to make the war happen and are profiting from it every step of the way.

There aren't a lot of rich kids in that desert. The U.S. military is largely working-class. The power brokers homing in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction contracts are not.

The Pentagon and its allies are close to achieving what they wanted all along, control of the nation of Iraq and its bounty, which is the wealth and myriad forms of power that flow from control of the world's second-largest oil reserves.

The transitional government of Iraq is to be headed by a retired Army lieutenant general, Jay Garner. His career path was typical. He moved effortlessly from his military career to the presidency of SYColeman, a defense contractor that helped Israel develop its Arrow missile-defense system. The iron web.

Those who dreamt of a flowering of democracy in Iraq are advised to consider the skepticism of Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush. He asked: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I guess there is no opinion against the post above.
In that case this will serve as a bump.


 

ChicagoMaroon

Senior member
Dec 10, 1999
403
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, let me try to answer a few points in one post. It's getting late and I'm hitting the sack soon.

Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

The hole in this argument is, this is an economy of scale. If you earn millions a year of course you'll pay more in taxes. But the regular working stiff is paying a higher percentage of his salary in taxes even though the millionaire is paying a much higher actual figure. I'm left with much less disposable income than that millionaire. And what's wrong with everyone paying their share? These are, after all, the same people who are guilty of the creative accounting that left our 401k's 201k's. They came through the recession in pretty good shape.

I pay ~50% of my monthly paycheck over in various federal and state taxes. Since our income tax system is progressive, you cannot tell me you pay "a higher percentage of [your] salary in taxes" because I am in the top marginal tax bracket.

I don't mind paying what I do, but I don't get this "paying my fair share" argument. Do I consume more public resources than the next guy? I probably consume less because I've never taken public assistance or been on unemployment. The only principled argument for me paying more than someone else is that because I can, and that's fine, but don't tell me it's my "fair" share.

I work everyday and I work damn hard, it's almost 8pm on a Friday night and here I am writing a brief for the 9th Circuit... are you working right now? It's pretty frustrating to hear all these "tax the bastards more!" rants from people on a high horse. I pay 50% of what I earn over to government agencies and I'm happy to because I love this country, but Christ how much more to you want to tax me? 70%? 80%? Why not 100%?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote

I pay ~50% of my monthly paycheck over in various federal and state taxes. Since our income tax system is progressive, you cannot tell me you pay "a higher percentage of [your] salary in taxes" because I am in the top marginal tax bracket.

I don't mind paying what I do, but I don't get this "paying my fair share" argument. Do I consume more public resources than the next guy? I probably consume less because I've never taken public assistance or been on unemployment. The only principled argument for me paying more than someone else is that because I can, and that's fine, but don't tell me it's my "fair" share.

I work everyday and I work damn hard, it's almost 8pm on a Friday night and here I am writing a brief for the 9th Circuit... are you working right now? It's pretty frustrating to hear all these "tax the bastards more!" rants from people on a high horse. I pay 50% of what I earn over to government agencies and I'm happy to because I love this country, but Christ how much more to you want to tax me? 70%? 80%? Why not 100%?[/quote]

Actually, the real debate hidden among the fire and brimstone here about is; should the budget currently before congress be passed with the tax cut or 700 odd billion or so being directed toward the higher earning taxpayer or rather, should it be directed to the segment that will stimulate the economy. Well... perhaps there are a lot more other lucid debates ongoing but my thrust is a more demand side one. Having said that, I see no reason to increase the personal tax of anyone. I find a better solution in the increase of revenue via increase in a manufacturing base, full employment and the use of cheaper disposable munitions - lower the incremental cost of war and chalk up the collateral issue to cost accounting in the real world.

Besides, briefing the 9th ought to simply be a creative cut and paste. The outcome will be the same.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
It recently occured to me that there are so many people in the lower tax brackets or zero tax bracket (earned income tax credit) that to insure the continuation of our system as we know it and provide financial fairness to the soldiers, sailors, marines etc. a new tax should be introduced and passed into law. We could refer to it as the "opportunity tax". This would be a tax levied on those who don't or haven't joined the uniformed service - Like during the civil war. It would affect tax payers earning over say... $75,000 a year or driving a Porche. It would be applicable for the entire time they are in an earning status.
One can easily see the opportunity foregone by the service member earning substandard wages while others educate themselves and secure an earlier start at the limited professional employment opportunities or garner seniority in the trades or other fields. Having not defended the nation that provides the enviornment nor apt to do so in the future the opportunists should be made to contribute to the "Equity Fund". Congress has never reasonably remunerated for the value of "life on the line" of the Armed Services nor have the cities, states or municapalities saw fit to pay the police or fire folks a decent wage.

Ok! lets agrue.



:evil:
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ChicagoMaroon
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Well, let me try to answer a few points in one post. It's getting late and I'm hitting the sack soon.

Why cant people see that the top 10% of wage earners are the only ones really paying any substantial amount of the tax burden anyway? So it goes without saying that if a tax cut is passed, they will be the beneficiaries of it.

The hole in this argument is, this is an economy of scale. If you earn millions a year of course you'll pay more in taxes. But the regular working stiff is paying a higher percentage of his salary in taxes even though the millionaire is paying a much higher actual figure. I'm left with much less disposable income than that millionaire. And what's wrong with everyone paying their share? These are, after all, the same people who are guilty of the creative accounting that left our 401k's 201k's. They came through the recession in pretty good shape.

I pay ~50% of my monthly paycheck over in various federal and state taxes. Since our income tax system is progressive, you cannot tell me you pay "a higher percentage of [your] salary in taxes" because I am in the top marginal tax bracket.

I don't mind paying what I do, but I don't get this "paying my fair share" argument. Do I consume more public resources than the next guy? I probably consume less because I've never taken public assistance or been on unemployment. The only principled argument for me paying more than someone else is that because I can, and that's fine, but don't tell me it's my "fair" share.

I work everyday and I work damn hard, it's almost 8pm on a Friday night and here I am writing a brief for the 9th Circuit... are you working right now? It's pretty frustrating to hear all these "tax the bastards more!" rants from people on a high horse. I pay 50% of what I earn over to government agencies and I'm happy to because I love this country, but Christ how much more to you want to tax me? 70%? 80%? Why not 100%?

No one is asking you to pay more. Just stop Bush from ending the surplus and rebuilding the deficits.

If you're in the top 10% you're in line for some substantial tax cuts via Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut of 2001. Another $726 billion should help as well. The nation will be paying for them for years to come, but that's OK. The rest of us will live paycheck to paycheck and be expected to keep the economy going through consumer spending while we pile up more and more debt as the nation falls behind paying the interest on Bush's deficits.

If you'd like to pay less in taxes you can always find a minimum wage job. Then you can work until 8 PM on Friday for $5.15 an hour.

Here's an idea, if the majority of workers in this country earned a living wage they would be able to shoulder more of the tax burden. Perhaps instead of tax cuts for the top 10% we should encourage higher wages for the bottom 50%. Maybe keep those executive compensation packages down to say $1 million a year instead of the current hundreds of millions along with stock options and perks. Maybe they could be asked to pay their own country club fees. Or fly commercial airlines instead of the company jet. Or give up all that compensation they get for attending business meetings that require travel. Last year the CEO of the company I work for earned more in stipends for business meetings than most of our company's employees earned all year. Shouldn't those meetings be considered part of his job? I can see paying for travel expenses but compensating him for attending over and above his salary, bonus and stock options. How far can they take this executive compensation? And complain about the tax rate while they are compensated like royalty?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote

If you'd like to pay less in taxes you can always find a minimum wage job. Then you can work until 8 PM on Friday for $5.15 an hour.

Here's an idea, if the majority of workers in this country earned a living wage they would be able to shoulder more of the tax burden. Perhaps instead of tax cuts for the top 10% we should encourage higher wages for the bottom 50%. Maybe keep those executive compensation packages down to say $1 million a year instead of the current hundreds of millions along with stock options and perks. Maybe they could be asked to pay their own country club fees. Or fly commercial airlines instead of the company jet. Or give up all that compensation they get for attending business meetings that require travel. Last year the CEO of the company I work for earned more in stipends for business meetings than most of our company's employees earned all year. Shouldn't those meetings be considered part of his job? I can see paying for travel expenses but compensating him for attending over and above his salary, bonus and stock options. How far can they take this executive compensation? And complain about the tax rate while they are compensated like royalty?[/quote]

The lower wage earner does not pay much in tax (other than FICA/MEDCARE). How can they? The thrust must be to enable them to pay some tax and thereby reduce the burden accross the spectrum. Corporations pay 7% of the revenue collected... look on page two of your "2002 - 1040 tax booklet" The taxes of corporations have been cut, cut and cut under the notion of double taxation. The tax on capital gains has been lowered. This simply gives the higher tax payer the loophole to reduce taxation with out economic stimulus as I see it while stimulation of the investment occurs.
The Corporate tax "C type since S type income is passed to the ownership directly" has cost the treasury bundles.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |