Here Comes the Tax Increase

[guido911]

E-mail I received today:


I'm just saying . . .

Just something to cheer you up~

     * If you had purchased $1,000 of AIG tock one year ago, you would have $42 left.
     *  With Lehman, you would have $6.60 left.
     *  With Fannie or Freddie, you would have less than $5 left.
     *  But if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago,drank all of the beer, then turned in the bottles or cans for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.

     Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.It's called the 401-Keg...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

E-mail I received today:


I'm just saying . . .

Just something to cheer you up~

     * If you had purchased $1,000 of AIG tock one year ago, you would have $42 left.
     *  With Lehman, you would have $6.60 left.
     *  With Fannie or Freddie, you would have less than $5 left.
     *  But if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago,drank all of the beer, then turned in the bottles or cans for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.

     Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.It's called the 401-Keg...

This is how it works in real-life:

I invest in Marshall's Beer in 22oz. bottles.  I save the bottles for a friend of mine who home brews and I get some home-brew in exchange.  Now that's a GREAT investment!

Far better than I would have gotten out of ING.

[cannon_fodder]

Saw this email in 1998, 2002, and again in 2007.  Glad to see it's making another comeback.  Beer is always worth the price of admission.

[Wilbur]

I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money.  Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.

While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):

1.  "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..."  That simply means income re-distribution.  

2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good?  Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?

I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work.  It simply rewards failure on several fronts.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money.  Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.

While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):

1.  "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..."  That simply means income re-distribution.  

2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good?  Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?

I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work.  It simply rewards failure on several fronts.

I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses?  Banks?  Other governments?

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money.  Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.

While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):

1.  "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..."  That simply means income re-distribution.  

2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good?  Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?

I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work.  It simply rewards failure on several fronts.

I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses?  Banks?  Other governments?

You and me ARE the economy.  Not the government.  Socialists and communists will tell you the government can't be the economy.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money.  Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.

While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):

1.  "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..."  That simply means income re-distribution.  

2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good?  Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?

I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work.  It simply rewards failure on several fronts.

I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses?  Banks?  Other governments?

You and me ARE the economy.  Not the government.  

Au contraire.

The government can be and is very much be part of the economy. You have road builders, teachers, law enforcement and people of other people who work for government.

I trust that you don't want that part of the government to disappear or to become irrelevant.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I find is disappointing that so many people believe the only stimulus out there is where the government (that would be you and me by the way) spends tons of money.  Stimulating the economy can be done in other ways that leaves more money with the people who will spent it, thus making the economy go.

While going over Obama's budget, I found some propaganda (imagine that):

1.  "... using the tax code to lessen increasing wage disparities..."  That simply means income re-distribution.  

2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Can anyone name one federal program they are proud to say is doing some good?  Now we want to turn over even more programs to them?

I have read nothing (yet) in this budget that promotes hard work.  It simply rewards failure on several fronts.

I'm curious as to exactly who you think should stimulate the economy, if not the federal gov't. Investment houses?  Banks?  Other governments?

You and me ARE the economy.  Not the government.  Socialists and communists will tell you the government can't be the economy.

Actually, the government is a HUGE part of the economy.  Government expenditure is one of the primary components of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product).

On a personal note, I work specifically with the government market for my hotel, and I can assure you that many many people in the private sector make their livings through government expenditures.  My job, for one, wouldn't be here.

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


2.  During Bush's terms, he only averaged 99,000 new jobs a month.  So 8.3M new jobs is bad?  Really?

Yes 8 million jobs in 8 years (I think you aren't counting the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008)  And certainly not counting the several hundred thousand Jan/Feb (Thats all Obama's fault).

Here is population growth from 1982 to 1990 (All the people that turned 18 in Bush's time as Pres)

Date            Estimated Pop    Pop Change
July 1, 1990      249,438,712      2,619,482      
July 1, 1989     246,819,230     2,320,248     
July 1, 1988     244,498,982     2,210,064     
July 1, 1987     242,288,918     2,156,031     
July 1, 1986     240,132,887     2,209,092     
July 1, 1985     237,923,795     2,098,893     
July 1, 1984     235,824,902     2,032,908
July 1, 1983     233,791,994     2,127,536
July 1, 1982     231,664,458     2,198,744
http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm

In the 8 years that "8 million" which I don't believe is the numbers before the several million job losses in 2008.  There was a population of people turning 18 was 19,872,998.  Lets assume 15% didn't make it to 18, that would be 16,892,000.  We would have to have 8 million people leave the workforce to stay even.  We might have broken even on Jobs/People.  Now we have a trend of negative job growth + baby boomers not leaving because they don't have any money any more.  So not only are we losing jobs we don't have people retiring.  And adding about 2 million people a year who will be working age.  That isn't good.

[Conan71]

cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple.  Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force.  A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years.  A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies.  That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.

Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders,  China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs.  Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.

So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right?  Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??  

How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing?  Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71



How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing?  Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.

Agreed. But it's also dumb to not dissect our recent history and try to learn from it.

Recent lessons:

1) It's dumb to assume real estate prices will go up forever.

2) A laissez-faire attitude with bank regulation is dumb.

3) Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time is dumb.

4) Starting a war against a nation that had nothing to do with a deadly terrorist attack at home is dumb.

4) Not having post-war plan of any kind is dumb.

5) If you have someone who was a mediocre student and had a long string of business failures, plus decades of drug and alcohol abuse that inevitably lead to long-term problems, it's dumb to assume he'll suddenly become a great president.

Anything else?

[we vs us]

I'd also like to add:  in flush conditions, without proper oversight you'll have graft, corruption, and outright theft.  cf.  Wall Street and the Iraq occupation.

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple.  Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force.  A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years.  A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies.  That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.

Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders,  China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs.  Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.

So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right?  Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??  

How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing?  Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

cmatt- With all due respect, it's not that simple.  Not all 2mm 18 year olds are going into the work-force.  A good percentage will go on to post-secondary education and won't enter the job market for four years.  A smaller percentage will go on to post-graduate studies.  That assumption also assumes there is no exit from the work force due to retirement, disability, and death.

Consider that 8.6mm jobs managed to be created during an era when NAFTA helped create more jobs across the border, not in our borders,  China was providing more of our durable goods, and India and the Phillipines were getting American call-center jobs.  Bush walked into a recession in progress as well.

So those are all menial jobs shipped overseas, right?  Don't we want higher-quality, higher-paying jobs in the U.S.??  

How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing?  Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.

The number that go onto college and do not enter the workforce in 2-6 years should be fairly consistent and equal out from the # that were deferred the 2-6 years previous.
I said that 8 million seemed like an appropriate number of retirements, deaths, and disabilities over 8 years.  AVG death rate in the US is about 8.5 per 1,000.  That puts us at about 1.2 million deaths in the work force a year.  That is if you take the average death rate.  Which obviously will be skewed higher based on age factors, etc.  I don't know why everybody wants to disregard the past so much.  It has valuable information.  Without the past you don't know where you are in the present.  Think about where you are sitting reading this..  Now remove EVERYTHING that you know.  You now have no idea where you are sitting or even what a computer is

[Cats Cats Cats]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Conan71



How long does everyone need to keep looking back and bashing?  Let's not take our eye off the ball of what is going on now and in the near future.

Agreed. But it's also dumb to not dissect our recent history and try to learn from it.

Recent lessons:

1) It's dumb to assume real estate prices will go up forever.

2) A laissez-faire attitude with bank regulation is dumb.

3) Starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time is dumb.

4) Starting a war against a nation that had nothing to do with a deadly terrorist attack at home is dumb.

4) Not having post-war plan of any kind is dumb.

5) If you have someone who was a mediocre student and had a long string of business failures, plus decades of drug and alcohol abuse that inevitably lead to long-term problems, it's dumb to assume he'll suddenly become a great president.

Anything else?

All of those things are not dumb if you ONLY look forward.  None of them are dumb if you have no knowledge of anything else that has happened ever.  So to you all of it is just happening for the first time.  I must admit that (only looking forward) you would have no idea it was stupid until you did it and saw the after effects.  Which you would then forget that you did it in the first place.  Now you know exactly where the Republicans in congress and senate are coming from.

[guido911]

This is galling. Tax cheat Giethner is pledging to get tough on tax avoiders:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MN08G1&show_article=1

You really just cannot make this stuff up.