This is kind of an incredible clip , but very important to the investor who frequent this site, especially those of you who hide from the Fly that you are well over the 47.5 year old age barrier and are participating here “illegally.” (I know who you are, but no fear, I am no “stoolie.”)
I say that because you are more dependent on your investment portfolio in order to keep your old asses out of the Asst. Fryolater Manager slot at McDonald’s. I also say that because I like you old fuckers, even the increasingly “confused” ones, like Employee #8.
Listen very quietly as I set it up the following clip for you. You Obama supporters, who I’ve got to assume are either as wealthy as Ted Kennedy and don’t really care, or simply don’t have a firm grasp on market discount and time value calculations– I need you to listen closest of all.
What Obama wants to do with both income and capital gains taxes will have a direct — and near immediate –impact on this economy and these investing markets we love. If he’s elected, the discount, I believe, will come swiftly.
You see, right now the market is pricing in the current 15% capital gains tax on long term gains. Any announced increase, however, will immediately be taken out of the market price via a selloff, as the future value of all a stocks free cash flows from that point forward will have to be discounted at a higher rate than that already priced in 15%.
To understand this, think of what happens to a treasury bond sold at par (say $1000) when market interest rates rise higher than that rate stated on the originated bond. The bond drops in value proportionate to the increase in the interest rate. As well, if market (traded) interest rates drop, the principal value of that bond will go “above par,” or over the $1000 principal value. Simple “time value of money” finance.
The stock market experiences much the same effect when any single “universal” discount is applied to it from an external source, like a commodity shock or government interference. In the case of a tax on capital change, that tax (usually) will impact every stock on the market equally, and the market will go up or down “en masse” as a result of that universal discount rate change.
All of you remember the roaring bull market that spanned (with some drawbacks) from 1995-2000, yes? Well, a large part of that increase resulted in the universal value increase derived from the capital gains cut of some 30% (from 28% to 20%) by Clinton and the GOP Congress in 1996.
Now you may remember Clinton complaining about that signing at the time, but the fact is, he would’ve never balanced the budget that one last year in office if the IRS didn’t reap the extra capital gains tax revenue windfall from that cut.
What’s important to note, however is that even if you did not sell, the value of your portfolio rose (on average) simply because the future value of your cash flows was increased by that lower tax rate! This is important because the opposite is guaranteed to happen should that rate increase!
Now Barack Obama either doesn’t know how that all works, or he doesn’t care. He’d rather sacrifice the portfolio value of hundreds of million of Americans (and I include union pensions and insurace annuities in this mix) to his populist (although wrongheaded) idea of “fairness” — whatever the fuck that means (to me, it means “control”).
Note how in the following clip — even after being remonstrated by the moderator twice! — Obama hews to the tired socialist line, choosing to blame 50 lucky hedgies (like his patron George Soros)– who couldnt’ give a shit in a shinepot what he did with taxes, since they are rich enough that it will effect them little– for his quixotic “quest for justice.”
Pure theatrics, ladies and gentlemen. The fact is, the Dems still don’t get it, God bless ’em. They’ve got no clue how capital is formed, investments are made, and risk is weighed. Nor do they understand that capital is mobile and can be chased away as easily as a fat sweaty rich guy looking for nickle bags on the wrong side of town. Those nickle bags still need to be sold, mind you, but if the fat sweaty rich guy doesn’t feel comfortable buying, they won’t get sold there.
Perhaps Mr. Obama could do well by living a couple of years in a South American country, where capital is always at risk of flight, before he realizes that investment capital cannot be abused without an economy suffering as well. These are lessons hard learned, and one would’ve thought they’d learned them in the Clinton era, if not the Carter era before that.
It appears, however, that rather than being the proposed candidate for “Change” as he claims, Mr. Obama is the candidate for “Return” to the same failed socialist policies long dustbinned by history. He’s a better looking McGovern, in other words. Pity.
Enjoy the clip, and remember — this is from a Democratic Primary debate! This is the real Barack, no matter how he morphs “his game” in the next two months… Beware, investors…
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 450 300]
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
His tax policies suck, for sure.
But he’s pretty, and you feel guilty down in the San Diego whiteness, so let’s vote for him.
__
This is all true. Hopefully, it will be more election rhetoric than future policy.
However, the cost of unnecessary wars, unnecessary military bases all over the world, too much government infrastructure & expenses, investment house bailouts, mortgage bailouts, crony capitalism, no forward thinking innovative energy policy, federal printing presses, etc; is a far greater burden on the republic and individual, than any socialist tax scheme attempting to correct the ills of previous administrations.
I am not justifying incorrect remedies, just pointing out that if McCain is indeed McBush, things can be even worse. Talk about choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Where are all the Obama supporters? How can they let this post exist here without coming to his aid?
i vote for the dream team. OBAMA and PALIN
Incredible . really! We’re worried about Social Security so lets take away more of your retirement portfolio!??!? Now your really dependent. Sounds a lot like Hugo Chavez economics.
As I have come to understand more about the Democrat party (I used to vote straight Democrat ticket, but over the last 10 years, have come to deplore some of their platform) what sickens me is that Democrats prey on the un-intelligent, the un-informed, and the people low on the socio-economic scale.
The Democrat platform is basically designed to take these people and make them socio-econmic slaves to the state, and they can do this because most of the people they prey on are not smart enough to understand how they are being tricked. It is a great way to ensure they will always vote Democrat!
While there is no way to measure this next assertion, I would bet that a large majority of the Obama supporters whose incomes and education are low, when they hear the word “Change” subconciously are hearing “Money.” I really think that a lot of these people for Change really believe somehow that Obama is going to get them more “free” money.
I mean really! Can you imagine what would happen if Obama’s “changes” were to require his constituents to take more responsibility for their own lives, rather than relying on the State for their well-being?
Anyway, it sickens me that the Democrats prey on the most vulnerable of Americans.
It’s called serfdom.
I didn’t realize I was a serf until I looked at my 401K and saw it drop almost 30% in less than four months time. Then I started reading about social security and realized that was as unlikely to be of help in our old age as the 401K.
Then I remembered that most pensions were done away with and we were forced to start saving as much as possible in our 401K’s.
Now, my entire life’s saving is tied up in a 401K that I cannot take out without a 30% penality to the same gov that is stealing from the social security that we are forced to pay into.
Both my parents died before they could collect, and no it didn’t go into their estate for their children and grandchildren, it went to the government.
So six months ago this dumb, low wage earning democrat made it her obsession to learn everything possible about politics, economics and the stock market.
As someone who is illegal here based on my age, I thank the internet from the bottom of my daughters happy little heart, that I can learn from places like this and my other two favorites, “Investors Daily Edge” and “The Gold Report” – un biased, non agenda’d, non censored minds who have studied, learned and applied. And in some cases even to the point where their very safety and privacy has been threatened. One of my favorite journalists, Andy Carpenter comes to mind.
The Internet, and the brilliant minds who post freely on it, not for greed, but for the greater good, will lead to the greatest change, for the better, our world has seen and our greatest chance.
Thank you all.
wood – what does Obama need to be defended against here?
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Jake’s expressed concern for our country, but consider what he puts up in his political posts:
–instant, reflexive flinging of names and labels
–videos of chain-email quality that he hasn’t even viewed all the way through
–utter disregard for the facts (as in the tax rates he posts at the top of this message – even one of the current tax rates is wrong)
Let’s face it, if these political postings were translated into investment postings of similar quality, we would be looking at a Yahoo message board post by a permabull/bear.
If the past 7.5 years haven’t convinced you that the massive tax deferrals (tax cuts without balancing cuts in federal spending) practiced by Bush and promised by McCain are something less than a magical economic potion, there is nothing I could post here that will change your mind.
In fact, going back for the last five decades or so, the data clearly shows that, compared to Republican administrations, Democratic administrations on average have brought higher stock market returns, higher economic growth, lower unemployment, lower inflation, and higher pre-tax income growth through the 95th percentile while simultaneously distributing that growth far more evenly across the percentiles. These results are robust even if you build in a time lag or if you toss out the best and worst performances.
If you want to ignore that long term record and let partisan panic-mongers and witless conventional wisdom direct your investing, it could pay off for you. History shows that you will have to beat the odds to come out a winner, however.
It’s all the same people.
One big dog and pony act to make you morons think you have power.
Quit worrying about who becomes the next puppet and go eat a sandwich instead.
The current government has built the biggest McMansion known to man. The Mansion is filled with debt from war overseas, rising health care costs, deficit spending, and dependence on foreign oil.
The problem is our McMansion is also depreciating at an extremely fast rate. We have taken out 2nd and 3rd and 4th mortgages on our glorious house and spent all the proceeds on wars, mortgage bailouts, tax cuts, etc. The question is….can the USA keep up with the payment on our McMansion? If we let it (the country, aka McMansion) default on our “mortgage” who will bail us out? And what will that be like?
To me, it seems as though Obama is at least trying to address the issue….via increased taxes. With higher taxes, we can attempt to continue to make our “mortgage payments”, and not get foreclosed upon or go deeper in debt to foreign interest…
Sure markets will take a tumble and “average middle-class guys” such as myself may take one on the chin. I’m ok with that because if Obama is elected, I feel confident that we (as a country) will address our fiscal irresponsibility and continue to be the greatest nation on the planet.
Ottnot-
Lets keep it simple. The best way to handle the proposed tax changes is to simply post what is correct. You can post it in the comments section. I do find it odd that if what Jake posted is incorrect, that no democrats have come here and posted what is correct. I have a feeling that they haven’t because they know how it will be received. Of course, I am biased.
Secondly, lets address your assumptions.
1. That I somehow am in favor for continued reckless spending, via continued tax deferrals. That is incorrect.
2. That the performance of the economy is correllated to a high degree of confidence with whether the administration in the White House is democrat or republican.
It is the second assumption that is so dangerous. If there are studies on this, I would love to see them. I have not searched them out. I believe that your assumption has it directly backward. What I mean is that I would not at all be surprised if the administration elected is not due to the performance of the economy.
What this would look like is that the Democrats would inherit the White House after things had gotten bad, and would catch the next upturn of the business cycle. In reality, the performance of the economy would be driving the administration, not the other way around. It is interesting to think about, no?
The problem with Obama and the Dems right now is that they will make tax deferrals even worse by raising taxes, and still increasing spending. Furthermore, they will add to the responsibility of the Federal Government more people, as they expand social programs, which will decrease the incentive for more responsibility within our personal lives.
As for your first question, Obama needs to be defended against being a Socialist. When provided the facts, on recorded T.V., he chose to decrease economic growth, becoming a socialist, which is what he is practicing when he favor redistributing income based on “what is fair.” He said, point blank, that I don’t care what is best for the economy, I would rather redistribute wealth.
Well this average middle class girl doesn’t want to take it on the chin anymore.
And my momma said don’t ever vote for increased taxes.
Everybody knows they are just puppets, but what we don’t know is who are the puppeteers? Who be pulling the strings?
Oh lars, maybe we should just all move to the Bahama’s.
I hear the Russians pay a flat tax of 15%.
By the time we die, if we have any monetary success at all, will have paid 75% of that success to taxes and fees. At least that is what I have read.
My case against Mccain, is that he abandoned his crippled wife and children (two he adopted because their bio dad abandoned them and then he turns around and does the same thing. WTF????) for a woman 17 yrs his junior because her papa promised him the moon and stars. Who would do such a thing? And he is president material?
I’ll stick up for Obama- with all due respect, what you said is laughable.
Obama said, during his speech at the convention, that he will CUT Taxes, for 95% of the people.
In the TV clip above, Obama says he will raise the capital gains tax.
What Obama is going for is to create a wash. If it is just a wash, where the taxes on some are lowered, and the taxes are others are raised, what we have is RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
Let me ask you something. What do you feel so guilty about that makes it acceptable to have your hard-earned money taken from your family and given to another family, simply because they earn less money than your family?
If I may be forgiven please for taking up just a wee bit more of this valuable blog space. Exactly right Mr. Woodshedder. It is not about whose in office, but the normal business cycle and supply and demand that runs the economy. Taking money out of the pockets of the citizens and putting in the hands of politicians is not going to improve anything. The Government, all of Government, does not have a good record of fiscal responsibility. People being allowed to keep their money and put it back into the economy is what makes it go. This nonsense about redistribution is ridiculous, to say the least.
In order to stir the storm, let me remark that not one person has defended the democrat party from my assertion that they prey on the uneducated, low socio-economic status constituent. Essentially, they buy the vote of the poor by implying that if they are elected, they will get “free” money.
wood wrote:
Secondly, lets address your assumptions.
1. That I somehow am in favor for continued reckless spending, via continued tax deferrals. That is incorrect.
2. That the performance of the economy is correllated to a high degree of confidence with whether the administration in the White House is democrat or republican.
It is the second assumption that is so dangerous. If there are studies on this, I would love to see them. I have not searched them out. I believe that your assumption has it directly backward.
Wood, it isn’t my assumption. It is historical data. Hence my statement: going back for the last five decades or so, the data clearly shows…
I don’t know if you just didn’t read what I wrote, or if you have somehow drawn the conclusion that I just make shite up. I don’t work that way.
Woody,
both parties ” prey ” on their followers, the poor, pro-life, religious right, abortion rights, universal health insurance, tax cuts, etc. and every election year, the republican candidate, comes to miami and learns how to say viva cuba libre.
i am taking fly’s advise and eating a sandwich.
Ottnot, no, I read exactly what you wrote. I am challenging your assumption.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
For example, historical data, going back probably equally far as the data you referenced, show that the market typically underperforms, almost every September. Yes, we can see, looking at the data, that the market falls in September, almost every year.
Does the fact that the month changes from August to September make the market fall? I think most would believe that assumption to be unreasonable.
By extension, does the fact that the market has improved with Democrats in the White House mean that they are the cause?
I’m not saying that your data is incorrect Ottnot. I’m saying that it seems to me that you are falling for a very easy statistical trick, and that is to accept that corellation equals causation.
Chivas, to a certain extent, I agree. However, I think what you have described is more along the lines of pandering, rather than preying.
I believe that the Dems want larger and larger groups of Americans to become wards of the Federal Gov’t, which basically ensures the Dems a vote, for forever. If you are one of these people being taken care of, are you going to vote for anyone that makes you take more responsibility for your life? Or would you rather sit back, blame it on the rich, blame it on the man, blame it on the immigrants, whatever, and continue to vote for the people who give you “free” money.
The above, to me, is preying, and not pandering.
Jeebus, Wood.
You are like a doll with a string today, repeating conventional wisdom with no awareness of the data.
You wrote:
let me remark that not one person has defended the democrat party from my assertion that they prey on the uneducated, low socio-economic status constituent. Essentially, they buy the vote of the poor by implying that if they are elected, they will get “free” money.
The Republicans win a substantial majority of the low-median states, the Democrats a substantial majority of the high-median-income states. And that means, of course, that the states voting Democratic tend to receive far less in Federal dollars than they provide in Federal taxes.
In addition, registration and voting rates rise markedly with income. Simply put, the poor don’t vote much.
I’m not saying that your data is incorrect Ottnot. I’m saying that it seems to me that you are falling for a very easy statistical trick, and that is to accept that corellation equals causation.
Uh, Wood, you just described technical analysis, to which you adhere.
If you take the time to search out the studies, you will find that they tend to use a one-year lag – meaning that an administration is assigned the economic performance in a 4-year period beginning in the 2nd year of the administration. Why a one-year lag? Because studies show that to be the typical lag for macroeconomic policy to impact the economy.
Neither economists nor political scientists have settled on a reason for the correlation between Democratic administrations and superior economic performance. So you are correct to say that we can’t say that the administration causes the performance.
We do know, though, that the administration precedes the performance, and that the correlation is quite robust. From an investing standpoint, why not go with the historical odds?
Wood –
I do not agree. Yes there is some wealth re-distribution. BUT should children born into low class families suffer while we thrive and purchase McMansions, new bimmers, etc? Is that really necessary? I assume you read and contribute on this site because you have a decent amount of money and your family is well cared for……
If we are going to pay off our countries debt, it will be people like you and I that make it happen. Do you think the person ahead of you in line at Kroger’s paying for their groceries with food stamps can contribute to reducing our national debt? No. It is the midddle and upper class of this country that can take the punch to the face and still thrive….but also help to reduce our nation’s monumental debt.
I would much rather take a gamble on Obama and hope for better debt management within this country, than vote for McCain and pass along trillions upon trillions of debt and deficit spending to my children.
Wow, you make it sound like the democratic voting poplulation is nothing but a bunch of trailer trash leeches.
My grandmother who was very much democratic walked, yes that’s right walked/hitched whatever, almost 40 miles to the nearest town to convince a banker to give her a mortgage for a house in the 1930’s so the state wouldn’t take her 10 children away from her after her husband died and she was evicted from her home…with the state social workers standing by ready to adopt out all her children. She worked two full time jobs while her children lived on a diet of pancakes and potatoes. No free money for her and one of the first widowed women to get a mortgage on her own just by sheer determination.
My whole thing about voting democratic is I abhor war. I equate republicans with war. Not do I equate democrats with free money.
Maybe what you say is true about the democratic politicians, but I just cannot believe it is true about the democratic voting population. It is every human beings basic desire to earn and provide for their family, not to be a loser and look for free money. No body wants to be a leech any more than they want to be a serf. The trick is to get them off the TV and newspaper, so that they can become informed. So that they can realize that they do have control of their own life and they do have hope to one day become self sufficient. No one wants to be a leech and be a recipient of free money.
Ottnot, from an investing standpoint, sure, I like to stay with the odds. However, we are not talking about investing as much as we are talking about analysis of data.
Re: My technical analysis. Really. Have you read the studies I’ve been publishing? I would bet there is a lot more statistical significance in data that I’m basing my calls on, than there is in these studies you are referencing. But you can’t have it both ways. You are either saying that Technical Analysis is full of statistical trickery, with little evidence of causation, AND that the studies you reference likely suffer the same problems, or you are saying that they both do not.
My wife is bugging me to go to the store.
I’ll be back later to finish this most righteous debate.
God politics is fucking gay. I agree with you Shed on your subconscious change = money idea. I ain’t giving my money to no gypsies.
Ottnot, instead of posting as “McCarthy” and blaming Rush Limbaugh and witlessness, why not actually post some data in your Socialist buddy’s defense?
Show us, Ottnot, how taxing and spending and ramping that spending is better than having a low marginal tax rate that at least allows the economy to grow, as the Government expands? That at least points to a deficit because of spending, rather than a deficit because of no growth in tax revenue?
If you were honest, you would actually argue your position instead of using false analogies like “the stock market does better under Dems.” The fact is, the stock market is a discounting device, and LBJ’s “hot run” is the same as Bush’s here — a factor of “butter and guns” inflationary monetarism which will come crashing down soon. As well, Clinton’s “good stock market” is almost wholly ascribed to the REPUBLICAN initiatives described above. The rest of the Dem record is bad to negligable. Of course, Carter and FDR reigned under our absolute worst times.
The fact is, you have zero defense for your socialist leanings, no matter which obfuscatory statistic you choose to use. Yes, borrowing and spending is bad because it gives us deficits and increases the national debt. But today’s deficits — and indeed our national debt — are almost wholly dependent on the entitlement programs put in place by socialists (and yes, I admit Medicare jut got some help from Bush’s idiocy) over the last 75 years.
How do you defend your people — the socialist Dems — protecting the biggest Ponzi scheme in American history, “Social Security?” And doing so in a profoundly dishonest manner? How do you defend attacking Bush’s attempts to alleviate that massive entitlement liability while your own Democrat politicians say “all is well” and use any excuse to scare their own benighted dependents about it’s reform?
You cannot defend such actions and that’s why you come here with arguments as stupid as Employee 8’s and the other younger maleducated Obama fans. But you have no excuse as you are educated in these areas. You choose to look away as TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities — the “national debt” aside, and sneer at the GOP’s attempts to at least keep a viable private sector.
Sneering, after all, is what it’s all about. It’s like the perma-bears. They’d rather be wrong than aligned with “the masses.”
Instead of offering a solution — or even a justification — you come on under silly aliases and call me a Nazi, and McCarthy. Not only are you wrong sir, but you are a coward.
___
I’d rather have a robot for President, than these two clowns.
Don’t even get me started on the VP’s.
What a disaster.
I wouldn’t hire Palin to run an ice cream stand.
Jake, I just want you to know that despite your penchant for flamboyant language and occasional generational misspellings, you should be running the country because it is clear you are a political nut who actually has it right.
I pretty much and going to judge this debate now, Jake and Shed win.
I think Arnold should be president, not because I like him, I don’t like anything about him, but because he beat the Predator, and defended the Connor family from other terminators. He’s a family man. He smokes cigars, and speaks with an accent the world can relate to. He could easily punch an attacker’s mustache clean off.
wood wrote:
You are either saying that Technical Analysis is full of statistical trickery, with little evidence of causation, AND that the studies you reference likely suffer the same problems, or you are saying that they both do not.
What I’m saying is that the party-economy studies have not (yet?) hypothesized and demonstrated to a statistically significant level any causal mechanism. There are lots of explanations put forth, but they are presented are ideas to investigate rather than as a data-supported conclusion.
Likewise, TA does not have “proven” mechanisms. I would speculate that it never could, because that which works will eventually become too popular to work. The relationships between price patterns and the expected distribution of subsequent price movement are constantly changing.
One thing you can say in defense of the party-economy studies is that the historical economic effects do tend to conform with party philosophy in some important ways – the distribution of gains in pre-tax income being one notable example.
From an Independent (who long ago suspected that a deal had been cut when Romney withdrew from the race to accept the VP job) intending to support a McCain/Romney ticket despite my objection to his support of making the Bush tax cuts permanent but now reassessing:
AGI total $2 trillion or $1.6 million per capita … top 1% of taxpayers account for 20% of all AGI.
The budget deficit is now approaching $500 billion/yr tieing both candidates hands leaving little choice but to raise taxes and cut spending.
During the Clinton admin total return on bonds rose 73%, the deficit turned into a $236 billion surplus, 2.8 million jobs were added and the s&p 500 rose 256% over two terms handily beating the tax-cutting Reagan’s 178% gain all while promoting tax policy similar to Obama’s.
Bush’s tax cuts stimulated GDP growth but with no offset in spending or taxation the ultimate effect was an addition to the deficit or a tax on us all.
Obama would raise taxes on those making $250k or more hiking the rate from 35% to 39.6% (same as Clinton) and Cap Gains/Dividends tax from 15% to 20% and possibly as high as 28% where they were under Reagan.
No changes to Corp tax rate vs McCains reduction from 35 to 25%.
Obama would tax Estates at 45% after a $3.5 million exemption vs McCains’ 15% after a $10 million exemption. Note that while nobody is in favor of a death tax that the treasury has always depended on this tax, and the cuts made by Bush during war times was not offset by spending cuts elsewhere.
The Obama plan would raise $131 billion per year … His proposal (which some say he would defer till 2018) to raise soc sec taxes on the wealthy would raise another $40 billion per year and oddly it is estimated to cost $55 billion per year for a universal health plan (while the quality of a national health plan can be debated there is no debate that health insurance is one the largest/hardest expenses that businesses have to deal with and you’d think that business would be in favor of this).
The balance of taxes raised under Obama would reduce taxes for 95% of taxpayers as well as fund child care, education and mortgage interest … these could stimulate consumer spending while offsetting the losses from investment and spending from those taxed.
To aid business/job growth there would be a 0% cap gains tax for small biz and start-ups … Wallstreet should like that.
McCains’ tax proposal would provide a shortfall of $600 billion per year … thus adding to the already egregious deficits and in affect shifting more of a tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class consumer who is responsible for the bulk of this country’s consumption and success.
So much for that. Now off to eat a sandwich and cut the lawn …. discuss
I would hire Palin to babysit the many, many children I plan on having now that I know that ol’ Stevie-A Cohen hisself will be paying for their healthcare in this shoots and ladders, candyland world Obama describes.
Keep in mind that Ottnot is not as stupid as this poor schmuck, “I’ll stand up for Obama.”
Amazingly, Ottnot has contempt for people who understand economics and are GOP backers, and yet aligns himself with this poor guy. I guess the “ends” justify the means. The “ends” meaning “control,” of course.
To me, it seems as though Obama is at least trying to address the issue….via increased taxes. With higher taxes, we can attempt to continue to make our “mortgage payments”, and not get foreclosed upon or go deeper in debt to foreign interest…
And yet, spending will in no way be abated accordin to Dem plans, so what have you?
Obama wants to expand entitlement by nationalizing 20% of the US economy via taking over the health care system. Are you a fan of how government bureaucracies work in your life today? Hold on tight for when they can tell you you can schedule an X-ray. Speak to anyone in Canada about his stupidity.
Also, did you see anywhere that Obama was asking for belt tightening the other night? After all, if you increase taxes, GDP will not rise as it has been, and will likely make any recession worse than it will be. So we can experct increased government spending along with a depressed economy. That means higher interest rates, higher unemployment, slower or negative GDP growth, etc.
Are you prepared for a greater proportion of the economic GDP to be absorbed by the federal government? For more of the private sector — the innovative growth engine of the country — to be squeezed out by monopolistic government decision making?
I know Ottnot and his academic ilk think that the Western European economic model is the tits, but that’s because they live in a bubble which has no interaction with the real economy. In real comparison, the people of Western Europe have similar standard of living to folks in rural Mississipi. And of course, those standards are eroding daily. You still think this is such a good idea?
Sure markets will take a tumble and “average middle-class guys” such as myself may take one on the chin. I’m ok with that because if Obama is elected, I feel confident that we (as a country) will address our fiscal irresponsibility and continue to be the greatest nation on the planet.
You really ought to read history along with your much needed economics introduction. Check out how many countries “continued to be the greatest countries in the planet” when they ramped government control of the economy while quashing incentive and investment with attacks on the investing public. Heck, just look at the history of England from about 1945 (when they got rid of Churchill) to Margaret Thatcher. If not for the Iron Lady, that country would be as third world as Canada is today.
If that’s what you want, you will get a taste of it under Obama and a Pelosi Congress. I was under ten when Jimmy Carter nearly tanked this country, but I remember it well enough, and once is enough, thanks.
Ottnot-
Lets keep it simple. The best way to handle the proposed tax changes is to simply post what is correct. You can post it in the comments section. I do find it odd that if what Jake posted is incorrect, that no democrats have come here and posted what is correct.
Apologies for overlooking this.
It takes effort to correct factual errors, if they are even noticed, and there is virtually nothing to be gained from it. Don’t draw any conclusions about the lack of a correction. As you are well aware, the K of the PG is willing to do far more posting than the average ibc reader.
The rates Jake clipped from the WSJ may have been accurate at one time, based on the various debate and speech snippets. I don’t really know, as I haven’t tracked the matter. But it is quite clear that they do not reflect his current detailed plans. Here are his official comments on his partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts:
Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their tax
rates at or below where they were in the 1990s:
o Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s
levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to
ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was
affected by these changes.
o Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in
2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii
o Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on
dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be
lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.viii
o Estate Tax: The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of estates. For the
remaining 0.3% of estates over $7 million per couple, Obama will retain a rate of 45%. This policy
would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84 percent relative to 2000.ix
o Average Tax Rates Below the 1990s: Overall, the top 1 percent of households – people with an
average income of $1.6 million per year – would see their average federal income and payroll tax
rate increase from 21 percent today to 24 percent, less than the 25 percent these households would
have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.x
As you can see, the numbers differ significantly from those in Jake’s WSJ table.
And the error in the table’s current rate? The current income/payroll max rate of 37.4% is far below the current maximum. That number is accurate only for those with earned income above the point ($102,000 in 2008)at which Social Security payroll tax cuts out. Those below that cutoff can pay far more under current law. Perhaps the table was quoted without some underlying explanation as to whom the rates applied to.
Jake wrote:
Ottnot, instead of posting as “McCarthy” and blaming Rush Limbaugh and witlessness, why not actually post some data in your Socialist buddy’s defense?
I stopped there. Your errors and labels breed faster than I can exterminate them.
Stand up for O says: I would much rather take a gamble on Obama and hope for better debt management within this country, than vote for McCain and pass along trillions upon trillions of debt and deficit spending to my children.
It’s stuff like the above that gives me pain. When has a Democrat ever had better “debt management?” Once, with Bill Clinton, thanks to the flukish combination of massive defense cuts and a gigantic capital gains tax windfall. Even then, the entitlement spending was a sleeping monster that dwarfed any deficit or debt discussed. Today, it’s even worse, with Boomers ready to retire. The bill for Medicare and Social Security by 2040 is estimated to be anywhere between $40 and $75 trillion.
What has Obama done or said that makes you think he isn’t perfectly happy with leaving your grandchildren this bill, just as the Social Democrats of Western Europe have done with their own children?
Watch Western Europe closely, they will crash before we do. It should be an object lesson in redistributive politics to those who will listen.
But for the hard Reds like our academic Obama supporters, not even the collapse of the Soviet Union served sufficient warning, so I don’t have great hopes these data will serve either.
The best part of this all is that no matter what any of you say, you won’t change the others’ minds. You’ll just continue arguing like retards, calling each other names, until one or the other leaves in a huff of hurt internet feelings.
But don’t worry, you’re all winners; you all get your 4th place ribbons.
IMO, read up on the candidates and make your own call based on the issues. Arguing here just make you all look like the blind zealots that you accuse the parties of pandering to/preying on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008
Off to go eat a sandwich.
(On a sidenote, how the fuck is McCain worth 25mil+? I’m obviously in the wrong business.)
ottnott … surprising consistency in the numbers and facts you and I have both just posted and no doubt we each got them from different sources …. Jake is a republican lemming and can’t see the big picture … maybe he’s in the top 1% and it’s in his self interest to espouse the false or half truths that bombard the uninformed or more accurately those that can’t differentiate the facts and how they will relate to themselves individually or the American public as a whole and the wellbeing of the nation.
PS: Funny, Jake recognizes all the problems above but doesn’t want to pay for them … he wants to continue to defer payment via deficit spending until the Arabs and Chinese foreclose …. but Jake will be banking coin at his 15% tax rate but hiding his gains under his bed for fear of putting it in a bank … way ta go asshat!
Back to my sandwich and the redsox before I have to get the old lawnmower out.
Ottnot, you stopped there because you have no defense and you are a coward.
Rather than address the issues, you sneer and obfuscate by tossing statistics out the window.
________
Employee 8 — I’ve said this before, if you want to bring back Bill Clinton AND his GOP Congress, I’ll be all for it. The problem is, outside of NAFTA, Bill Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything to help this economy, including cutting spending (outside of defense) and the same taxes that spurred the megagrowth in the economy from 1996-2000.
And I give him huge kudos for NAFTA, but if you think Obama, with a Pelosi Congress in place, is going to enhance trade at the expense of labor interests, drill for oil at the expense of enviro-green interests, cut taxes at the expense of favored funding interests, and reform welfare at the expense of urban community interests, then you are really fooling yourself.
Look rather, for a repeat of the 2001-2004 Clinton Administration, where the economy poked along under higher interest rates, thanks to increased spending and taxation, and spurred the Republican Revolution (and House lock) of 1994.
Again, let history be your guide.
You’re a liar, Ottnot, you’ve had plenty of chances to respond in the comments, but took the “McCarthy” path instead. It’s far easier to hurl names than argue issues, especially when you are wrong:
First, let’s note these new policies have been “CHANGED” quite a bit since the Dem primary. This is “prime time” election cycle Obama politics, IOW, not “the real Barry.”
In any case, let’s look:
Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their tax
rates at or below where they were in the 1990s:
Except for the increase in the Social Security cap, which would increase their tax rate another 6.3% on top of these numbers. This will neither save Social Security (as the correspondant liability will have to increase) nor help our deficits. Instead, it will give Obama and Pelosi more off balance sheet cash to spend on inefficient government.
As for all of these also “CHANGED” plans…
It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii
o Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on
dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be
lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.viii
o Estate Tax: The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of estates. For the
remaining 0.3% of estates over $7 million per couple, Obama will retain a rate of 45%. This policy
would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84 percent relative to 2000.ix
Note, that all of the above are still SIGNIFICANT INCREASES in tax rates at all current levels, and will take the same discount out of the market, if in smaller proportions than what Obama originally promised his socialist hordes. Keep in mind, they are not happy that he modified his original penurious idiocy, but the smart ones, like Ottnot, understand that such a minimal plan will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bring down the deficit, and is therefore untenable as workable policy.
(IOW, “get elected first” worry about these little things later)
So ask yourself, if such teeny manipulations in the capital gains rates and income tax rates (save of courese for the WHOPPING social security rate increase that Ottnot conveniently forgot to include) are going to have such minimal effects on the the majority of the population whilst gutting only the “wealthy,” why bother with them in the first place? The loss in GDP growth will far offset any small amount of additional funds brought in, depressing revenues… so why bother?
I’ll leave that for you to decide for yourself, but if you’ve ever seen a tax increase that only effected that small a percentage of the population whilst leaving everyone else “scot-free” (Scots are cheap, remember), you let me in on the story. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts that will “cost you nothing” but your whole life.
Keep in mind that the Estate Tax only takes in a paltry $25 billion every year — or less than one tenth of one percent of the federal budget. But the socialists will die before they see it go away. Why do you think? It’s not because they care about the economy, or the deficit. It’s all about control, ladies and gents.
Employee8 — I see you have no refutation either, and instead rely on ad homs. That’s fine, I do ad homs better than you. For now, I’ll let you bask in your idiocy.
Keep this in mind asshat — the “top 1%” doesn’t care about tax policy. If you cared about this country, you’d be worried about the bottom 99%. That’s who the Dems are out to control, and to milk. If you thinkn differently, you’ve been massively deluded.
As well, I welcome your suggestions for any savings to the federal budget. I will start with Social Security and Medicare reform. Will you join me, as these are our two largest liabilities by far?
If not, I will assume that all of your bluster about your grandchildren is, like most Dem talking points (whether understood by their recipients or not), pure bullshit.
___
Employee 8 reports, hopefully:
The Obama plan would raise $131 billion per year … His proposal (which some say he would defer till 2018) to raise soc sec taxes on the wealthy would raise another $40 billion per year and oddly it is estimated to cost $55 billion per year for a universal health plan (while the quality of a national health plan can be debated there is no debate that health insurance is one the largest/hardest expenses that businesses have to deal with and you’d think that business would be in favor of this).
LOL… I hadn’t seen the above bullshit, apologies. Tell me, how do you increase someone’s Soc Sec tax bill without increasing the corresponding liability? What do you think will come of the increased cash? Do you beleive it will be used to short up Soc Sec?
(If so, I have a bridge to Fly’s house to rent you)
Do you even know what Social Security is?
And a universal health plan only costing $55 bn? Are you familiar with how much Medicare alone costs the Fed gummint? Are you familiar with how much Bush promised the new Drug Plan would cost, and how much it actually did?
As I suspected, you are woefully naive. Your responses here may have turned nasty, but at least I know you are not as morally suspect as Ottnot.
DPeez — your comments, like the Fly’s are cute.
But nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, and I have a feeling a lot of you guys would be regretting this pick in a couple of years. If I didn’t have a bunch of kids myself, I might almost like to see you get it, just so you can experience the “whip of silly socialism” — however briefly — for yourself.
The problem is, it’s an expensive lesson to learn. The early eighties after the mess of Nixon-Carter, even with Reagan fixing things, were still no picnic for the majority of Americans. But there was a reason that Reagan had a landslide in 1984.
The good guys won.
Let’s not revisit all that, shall we?
DPeez:
(On a sidenote, how the fuck is McCain worth 25mil+? I’m obviously in the wrong business.)
Marry a rich girl like he did. Seriously, Peez, it’s comments like the above that have me fearing that even the smart kids are not paying any attention.
If you are not going to pay attention, then don’t compound things by voting irresponsibly.
__
Agreed …. Soc Sec and Medicaid need reform and funding, the quickest and most pain free method is to raise the cap on taxable wages. This would only affect a small portion of the working population and surely you don’t think of providing for our retired and elderly as a handout to the poor. Cuts can only be perceived at this time in the cost of administering the plan (private contractor rather than gov) as well as direct cost reductions from providers/suppliers.
Somehow I get the impression that this guy (Obama) isn’t the typical “free-cash” democrat. He seems to lecture the poor/minorities on taking responsibility, etc. I think he is more concerned with saving the middle class knowing that that in and of itself helps save the poor. I could be wrong and my only concern is that things change in a worse way due to complete control of the house, senate & congress. But I’ve made it clear on numerous occassions that I would have supported a McCain/Romney ticket especially if they were to fix my concerns with the deficit and egregious tax cuts to those not in need.
Hey, ya gotta give Clinton credit. I was afraid he would be that tax and spend liberal that we all fear but he turned into a moderate … sure his hands were tied by the house but he did recognize that there were other more pressing needs (deficit & health care) and adjusted to the needs of the nation rather than what his own expectations were and the economy did flourish under him … whether he got lucky or not, like all presidents in office, he gets the blame or the props regardless.
No doubt your plan for Soc Sec and Medicare doesn’t provide for funding but dissolution … I perceive you as being a “me” guy, not caring about his own relatives that may be dependent on those plans and longing for the poor asshats of the nation to fund their own retirement and med plans from jobs and pay scales that no longer make that possible. But I’ll give you the benefit of doubt…. what’s your plan?
PS: Jake, those facts and figures came from a highly respected business periodical that quite frankly was leaning toward McCain based on the growth aspects of his Corp ax cuts but I find it odd that they didn’t question those health care figures if they are incorrect. You lost me on the increase in liability (I suggested raising the cap on taxable wages rather than the rate) … unless you are assuming that those revenues aren’t set aside for soc sec and used instead to fund the health plan let’s say. This would be nothing new as gov has never set aside soc sec funding and just treats it as part of the general tax fund with ideas of paying for the plan later … maybe you could suggest some reform there???
To DPeezy and others who do not like a healthy debate…Debating is good for us. It exercises our brain and intellect.
As long as we all refrain from ad hominem attacks, attacking ideas, and not people, I see no problem with it. Personally, I want to be open to new ideas, and to be able to examine my own biases and assumptions. When I debate, I am able to better work through that process.
E8- you’ve had some nice comments. Very good balancing act to Jake’s passionate ranting. No offense Jake. I kind of like it when you go off.
Off for now … done with my sandwich, the Sox lost 4-2 though you wouldn’t recognize anyone in the lineup and the lawn beckons … later
I am still offering to change the subject to something that is not so divisive & emotional as politics …. something like religious beliefs.
Any takers?
God, I want to know why no one talks about the lantern.
Wood: Yes, healthy debate can be good, although I’ve personally have found it futile to debate politics (or religion). It’s like an argument between a Red Sox and a Yankees fan on who is better.
However, what has gone on here for most of the thread has not been a ‘healthy debate’; not when the ringleader (amongst others) goes on ‘passionate rants’, as you said yourself.
_______________
I apologize, Jake, for not knowing McCain’s personal history, especially as it pertains to his wife. The high number simply took me by surprise.
Much like the ‘issue’ of Obama & his acquaintances, it does not enter into my decision to support or not support a candidate. If McCain’s rich family has an effect on his policies, then those have been “priced in”/already have been revealed or will be revealed in the debates.
You think he & his wife have an interest in the death tax when she, her children and one of McCain’s children own 68% of her since deceased (in 2000 – missed the first death tax reduction) father’s beer distributorship business which is now the source of McCain’s wealth?
Posted the link above in my name ….
Something Jake should do more of so we can be sure that the facts he presents aren’t purposely skewed to support his arguments.
Why not eschew this whole platform debate and look at the money?
After all this is a market website:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.php?cycle=2008
Employee 8– you let me know what you need a linkn on, and I’ll try not to insult your intelligence by providing a link to the NY Times.
Employee 8, you are not answering simple questions today, and I don’t blame you, since it seems you’re “at a loss” on many of these substantive issues.
Still, I will try again, and since you’ve decided not to answer my Soc Sec questions… (you still repeat the idiocy that raising the cap will somehow save the system, even as it increases the liability)… onto the next subject you brought up.
Do you really think Cyndi McCain’s $250 mm fortune is at any risk of the estate tax?
Did you get my earlier post about how the stupid tax only collects $25bn a year? Do you think maybe only $50 bn of wealth is transferred every year?
Please collect a clue from the nearest clue depot, and forego voting until you’ve gotten this simple information about your political system.
And while you are at the clue depot, ask yourself — why should the federal government have a claim on 50% of a family’s assets, simply because the patron died?
If you can answer this question truthfully, you will be well on your way to political self discovery.
Let me put it this way, I know how Ottnot and other “hard lefties” would answer that question.
_
Sorry, “God” — there’s a separation of Church and State in this country.
I don’t care what your religion is, as long as you believe in freedom.
And as cuervo’s “follow the money” comment suggests, true freedom starts with economic freedom.
___
Political debates (if personal attacks are left out of them) help people get a clearer picture of the facts. Political debates are based on facts so this should be possible, although not in ones home because everybody always gets mad and leaves in a huff. Religious debates on the other hand are based on faith and nobody can really come up with any provable facts. Plus feelings can get deeply hurt because religion is something most religious people carry very close to their hearts.
I have an honest question though, to the republicans on here. Do you think that Mccain’s past history of abandoning his first family is indicative of how little he cares for other people? If he doesn’t even care about his own family, why in the world would he care about anybody elses?
Do you think that that is important in a presidential candidate? Because most people are easily corrupted, but when you start with someone whose character is already suspect and proven to be wishy/washy how well will he hold up in office.
Are you happy with him as a candidate for your party.
That’s a sincere question and not meant to be devisive. A lot of people are still undecided, me included.
And do you think if nobody at all showed up to vote the parties would be forced to find better candidates.
Mrs. Anthony, all due respect, but the first thing you may need to do is inspect your assumptions.
Did, in fact, McCain abandon his family? I have not heard this at all. In fact, I’ve heard he’s got a great relationship with all his kids, including the ones stationed in Iraq, and the one he had with Cyndia and that Cyndi adopted.
I did hear he divorced his first wife.
If you actually know something different, I’d be interested to hear it. In the meantime, I tend to think family stuff is “out of bounds.” I think we could have a field day here over Baracks’s wife if we wanted to, but the fact is, one can never account for what one’s wife says.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Just one of the articles I read. Sorry I can’t get it into link form.
Taxation or deficit spending by the gov’t is acceptable so long as it goes to those that either have money or those that have lost money. No others need apply. Therefore Jake, you have nothing to worry about as long as 93% of the employment force remains employed.
First off, you haven’t answered any of my questions or even offered up any of your own solutions … apparently you have no answers!
I though shall try once again to make some points…
Raising the Cap on payroll taxes:
Former Social Security Commissioner Robert M. Ball proposes lifting the cap gradually so that by 2045 it will once again capture 90 percent of all covered earnings. “This isn’t a new tax,”he notes. “It simply restores a policy already set by Congress—so it should attract bipartisan support.”
The change would affect only about 6 percent of all taxpayers, but the increased net revenues would cut the projected shortfall by about 32 percent—or up to 40 percent if phased in faster.
Raise the rate:
gradually increase workers’ contributions and matching employer taxes from 12.4 percent of payroll to about 15 percent over 70 years.
Here’s one way to think about the idea: Would you be willing to pay a 21 percent increase in premiums over several decades to maintain an insurance policy that protects you against lost earnings from disability, pays benefits upon your retirement as long as you live, and pays benefits to your survivors when you die? If the answer is yes, then this is an idea worth keeping on the table. It’s estimated that such a payroll tax increase could eliminate 100 percent of the long-term revenue shortfall.
Raise Taxation of benefits:
It’s often said that Social Security wastes billions paying benefits to affluent retirees who don’t need any help. he fairest way to fix this problem, some believe, is not to deny benefits to people who do well in life—that would penalize success—but to increase the taxation of benefits so that higher-income beneficiaries would make a greater contribution to keeping the system solvent. This change would reduce the shortfall by about 10 percent.
Dedicate some of the death tax to soc sec rather than eliminate it:
Instead of being phased out entirely, as Bush proposes, it could be kept at the level set for 2009, when only estates valued at $3.5 million or more ($7 million for a couple) will still be taxed. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., among others, proposes such a plan. At that level, he notes, only one-half of 1 percent of all estates will be taxed. Doing away with the tax completely, he argues, would mean “a huge bonanza for those who are already the most fortunate in our society—at the expense of other taxpayers.” This change would reduce the shortfall by about 27 percent.
I’ve posted just a few ideas I’ve found in my research …
Actuaries agree that Social Security’s shortfall would more than disappear if the relatively modest ideas outlined here were adopted. Some ideas aren’t likely to generate broad political support, but the math shows that even some selections from this menu could keep the system solvent far into the future.
Jake …. JAKE!!!!!!
Your turn …. you’re up!
Employee 8, you’re lame ass straw manning is extremely boring. You can’t win an argument by making up your own bogey men to argue with, you must respond to the conversation as it progresses.
Can you answer even one of the queries I’ve put to you?
___
Okay, I see your cut and paste job on Social Security taxation increases. Do you understand — and this is for the last time now — that you must increase the benefit if you increase the cap?
I ask you — again for the last time — do you understand what Social Security is?
And to answer your lame question (or maybe it was the question of the cut and paste answerer you found) — no, I unquivocally would never pay another dime for the rotten POS “return” I get from the non-asset based Social Security system as configured. Currently, I pay over 12% of my salary up to $102,000 per year, which is 12,000 I will likely never see again. You want me to more than triple that amount (or more?) with the “promise” that you’ll finally have SS balanced? And what of my increased benefit? How much will that be?
No, I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night. When Socialist Security was begun, it took less than 1% of a person’s paycheck. Today the demand is over 12x that number. And still it’s bankrupt. Imagine me trusting a private business with that kind of record?
If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn’t pay another dime to keep a failing Ponzi scheme open either. I actually demand a return on my investment, and I want an accounting of where it goes. The Social Security system, as currently structured, is not a fiduciary, it’s a thieve’s nest.
Employee8/COMMUNIST/MARXIST/SOCIALIST/VLADIMIR said,
“Doing away with the tax completely, he argues, would mean “a huge bonanza for those who are already the most fortunate in our society—at the expense of other taxpayers.”
If I choose to leave my hard earned fortune to my great great great grandchildren how does it harm the taxpayer? I earned it. Take some responsibility for your own situation and leave your fortune to the almighty state or whichever charity you choose but leave me alone.
Show me a country where there is separation of mosque & state & I’ll show you true freedom, not some buzzword hijacked by those who fear me.
Gutless wonder ….
You challenged me to offer up some plan to reform or save SS/Med and I have …. what’s your plan …. as I said before, you would no doubt dissolve those safety nets cuz you offer no solution of your own …. is that what your answer is Jake, every man for himself? Face it, no politician is ever gunna vote to shut down SS … so deal with reality, offer up a solution or shut up.
I’m done …. you challenge but offer nothing of your own other than slights … Merlin says Poof! Your narrow minded politics are old gum under a desk!
Sorry, loser, that was not a viable plan, for reasons I explained to you in the simplest terms I could find lying here close to the ground.
Try again.
You also gave no plan for Medicare, which already IS uncapped, falafel-for-brains. Yet it still rides the fiery railroad of death to imminent bankruptcy.
Odd, no?
Please, continue drinking, you grow more amusing as the night wears on.
And yes, my plan would be a dismantling of the system, on a gradual decade by decade process. Those old stiffs like yourself would enjoy full benefits, because you suck and couldn’t refrom the system for yourself.
Young turks like me that can think for themselves will have to forego a lot of the money we already wasted paying for your retirement, but in return, we will be given the means to put our money in an actual inviolable asset based system that cannot be touched by the Feds.
This will actually give all those people who put their money in SS year after year but then die before collecting (Gummint bonanza!) the opportunity to pass some dough along to their children.
What an amazing concept, the ability to actually build wealth within the family structure. Anathema to socialists of course, but that’s their problem.
))))))))
falafel-for-brains. That’s pretty funny.
…and I’m hungry.
Jake,
That was one of your better posts!
Thanks A-Dawg. Where ya been all weekend?
vote for mc cain. he will bring thermonooclear destruction upon us all and/or preside over the end of the US and A. then your stupid taxes will go down. significantly. think of the savings !
seriously, obama could rape babies and I’d still vote for him. only total morons would see anything positive in a mc cain presidency. (but yes I know, elections are only “simulated” at this point, as is representative democracy)
the only logical reason to vote for mc cain is if you wish the united states to just get it over with and get wiped off the map.
think post-afghanistan USSR. possibly some good shorting opportunities there for you.