It's The Economy, STUPID!.....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:...energy related business?

Like welding, design, engineering, rough necking, sales and leasing, contracting, energy law, land owner, distributor, field services, boiler/tank making, pipe fitting, crane/rigging, electric motors, drilling, trucking, accounting, administration, logistics, supervising, maintenance, environmental compliance, safety, technical...

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you have no way of knowing what business he is in, but there is a 50/50 shot his industry is in some way "in an energy related business."  Frankly, I'd guess half of Tulsa is in an energy related business.

There have been many other sectors that have done well over the last 7 years, still other sectors that have been stagnant - but an individual could excel at.  What horrible job are you stuck in that you assume everyone who does well is either lucky to catch some fast train or evil?

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?

As a matter-of-fact, yes.

How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains?  Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?

Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....

Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?

First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence.  They are mutually exclusive of each other.  No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service).  This has been proven over and over, without exception.

Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters.  There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan.  These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.

I have 23 "common laborers" working for me.  I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution.  I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is.  I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!  

I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck.  At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70.  They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance.  An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.

Third, a house is not a savings account!!!  There is no protection for investment in a home.  Never has been.  Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat.  A smart savings plan does not.

It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.  

As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal.  It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use.  Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics.  Conservatives use the term "I think."   Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic.  Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense.  It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals.  You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.

Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING.  If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give.  I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough.  This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth!  Cut a check!  Then tell us about how generous you are.  That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check!  You will FEEL better!

Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.

Are you in an energy related business?

I wish!  Then I would be doing really well, but that's a bit too risky for me. . . boom and bust.  My hats off to those who are though!

[FOTD]

The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?

[HazMatCFO]

I'm better off  now than I was 7 years ago. However, I was better off 7 years ago than I was 15 years ago and I was better off 15 years ago than I was 22 years ago.

My continued improvement has more to do with my ability, not with who occupied the White House.

I'm sorry, but it bothers me to see people who believe their success depends on who is President rather than their own personal responsibility.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by HazMatCFO

I'm better off  now than I was 7 years ago. However, I was better off 7 years ago than I was 15 years ago and I was better off 15 years ago than I was 22 years ago.

My continued improvement has more to do with my ability, not with who occupied the White House.

I'm sorry, but it bothers me to see people who believe their success depends on who is President rather than their own personal responsibility.

Absolutely correct!!

Unfortunately we no longer live in a time of personal responsibility.  

A minority of us still feel that we are in control of our own futures, and refuse bear the burden of mediocrity.

Actually. . . I take that back!  I think a secret majority respect personal responsibility, they have just been taught not to talk about it, because it makes them sound heartless.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

A minority of us still feel that we are in control of our own futures...

I am not my own boss, I am married.

Do you know what I did before I got married...anything I wanted to.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?

Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36%   (it goes "number" then the "%" sign.  Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.  

Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck.  More money = more toys, that's all.  Does that mean they are not better off?

Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford.  Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.

Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant.  If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.

Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point?  Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?  
- - -

and I am not my own boss either... on any level.  However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order.   Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK.  Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?

As a matter-of-fact, yes.

How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains?  Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?

Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....

Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?

First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence.  They are mutually exclusive of each other.  No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service).  This has been proven over and over, without exception.

Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters.  There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan.  These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.

I have 23 "common laborers" working for me.  I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution.  I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is.  I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!  

I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck.  At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70.  They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance.  An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.

Third, a house is not a savings account!!!  There is no protection for investment in a home.  Never has been.  Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat.  A smart savings plan does not.

It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.  

As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal.  It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use.  Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics.  Conservatives use the term "I think."   Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic.  Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense.  It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals.  You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.

Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING.  If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give.  I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough.  This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth!  Cut a check!  Then tell us about how generous you are.  That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check!  You will FEEL better!

Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.

Its interesting you use the "I feel, I think" description on liberals and conservatives that way. Our current president is an "I feel" person, versus the Kerry "I think". Look at their debates again.  Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of "I feel" people, from Christian fundamentalist faith healing conservatives to Tree hugging crystal/pyramid power healing liberals. You got your share on both sides. I remember in the Bush Gore campaign that the Bushies put down Gore because he "wasnt like the common man", he used "big words and sentences", was, horror of horrors an "intellectual".  Dont vote for the person who actually learned something in school, they are not like us, vote for the village idiot who is. Remember the commentators and pundits actually pointing out all of that in the last presidential debates? Go chop wood and ride a horse for the camera, dont act too smart or people wont vote for you, they will feel intimidated and not like you.  I kept wanting to ask, "What do you people tell your kids when they go to school? "Dont learn to much or you will never be able to be president?" When I was a kid it was supposed to be the smartest person, the person who studied the hardest that was most respected and looked up to. Either that or you have to "play the game, aka lie" and act like a loveable idiot to get the vote. Interesting world these days.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

Originally posted by FOTD

Originally posted by Conan71

Originally posted by FOTD

Its interesting you use the "I feel, I think" description on liberals and conservatives that way. Our current president is an "I feel" person, versus the Kerry "I think". Look at their debates again.  Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of "I feel" people, from Christian fundamentalist faith healing conservatives to Tree hugging crystal/pyramid power healing liberals. You got your share on both sides. I remember in the Bush Gore campaign that the Bushies put down Gore because he "wasnt like the common man", he used "big words and sentences", was, horror of horrors an "intellectual".  Dont vote for the person who actually learned something in school, they are not like us, vote for the village idiot who is. Remember the commentators and pundits actually pointing out all of that in the last presidential debates? Go chop wood and ride a horse for the camera, dont act too smart or people wont vote for you, they will feel intimidated and get angry.

You completely miss the point, yet you make another valid point!

First of all, the Bushes did say that "Gore was not in touch with the common man."  They never made any statement concerning his lexicon.  Another statement made by Bush, the former, was that "he does not talk 'to' the common american, he talks 'at' them.  I tend to agree with this completely.

Second. . . of course both sides make I feel statements, as a fundamental part of communication and conversation, but when discussing policy, feelings and the "I feel" statement rules the left.  There is very little tolerance for it on the right.

John Kerry's biggest flaw as a Liberal Democrat is that he used terms like "I think" and "I understand."  Once challenged, he was forced to change his position because "thought" leaves very little wiggle room, and he needs a bunch.

As for Gore. . .Mr. Gore has no problem making wild and bold statements that he knows are false.  35 of the 37 statements he made in his "Inconvenient" movie were blatantly false.  He's not as good at it as Bill but he's trying.  

The debate is not between "Intellectual" v.s. "Common Man," It's between "talker" v.s. "doer."  Mr. Bush is not a great president, but he's not afraid to "do" what is right even if it means suffering.  He is comfortable within his skin, and it shows.  If he says he is going to do something, that is exactly what he does, or tries to do.  I can't fault that.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?

Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36%   (it goes "number" then the "%" sign.  Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.  

Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck.  More money = more toys, that's all.  Does that mean they are not better off?

Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford.  Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.

Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant.  If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.

Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point?  Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?  
- - -

and I am not my own boss either... on any level.  However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order.   Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK.  Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).

"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?

As a matter-of-fact, yes.

How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains?  Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?

Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....

I'm a worker and investor.  It's an accepted fact that home equity fluctuates, much like investment markets.  A house is a great long-term investment as a primary family dwelling if the family plans on staying for 20 years.  Unless you are a total pig, sticks and bricks will appreciate in 20 years and will weather fluctuations in the housing market.  Things like mobile homes or buying in a declining area are a poor investment and can be avoided.

If you are in for the long-haul, you will almost always come out better off than you were when you got into an investment, unless you have to bail out at an inopportune time due to an unforseen crisis.  If you are only concerned with short-term gains, you better have time to tend it and react quickly without emotion.

My income increased every year during the Clinton years.  I took a four year sabbatical from the "real" world, tended my own things and ran a small business of my own.  

I've been back in the workforce again for three years and I'm making almost double what I was three years ago.  A lot of that has to do with my own hard work and initiative and a lot has to do with a lot of capital spending in the industry I've chosen to work in.  So some of it is good timing due to the economy and oil prices and some of it is I know how to market and sell.  I've managed to make a living through every economic "downturn" in the last 20 years and I've always brought growth anywhere I've worked.

If I choose to buy into "the economy sucks" my personal economy will suffer.  If I choose to be optimistic, I will succeed while others fail.  One of the first questions I would ask a rep candidate when I was a regional manager with a chemical company was: "How's the local economy?"  If the answer was anything less than "good" or "great", I found a way to tactfully end the interview within five minutes.  If they aren't out working every day, then their excuse will be: "The economy sucks."

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?

Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36%   (it goes "number" then the "%" sign.  Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.  

Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck.  More money = more toys, that's all.  Does that mean they are not better off?

Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford.  Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.

Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant.  If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.

Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point?  Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?  
- - -

and I am not my own boss either... on any level.  However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order.   Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK.  Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).

"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder

That was in reply to a restaurant recommendation that is ~8 miles from my house and opposite of where I work.   How is that, in any way, relevant to me pointing out the flaws in your assumption?

Yep, I pretty much only leave midtown on the weekends.  Guess that proves I have no concept of economics and am incapable of abstract thought.  Either that or it proves I live, work, my son goes to school, and shop in the Midtown area.

But hey, why try to take a quote in context when it is so much easier to ignore points, issues, and contrary ideas by trying to skew the discussion.
- - -

Hey, back on topic AOX:

quote:These folks - say 90% of the nation - need pay raises.

So what, raise the minimum wage to $68,000 a year?  America is among the most affluent nations in the world - with our poor being rich in most places.  Why can't you see that?  Car, roof, food, medical care, cable TV and no iPhone = poor.

I'm going to make some guesses here, let me know if I'm right:

1) You have no economic eduction at any level
2) You have never read a book on economics
3) Your work in no way entails economic or financial thought
4) You are unhappy about your career choice
5) You feel you are not paid what you are worth
6) Nothing is your fault and someone else should fix it (Government, paid for by those with more money than you)
7) You pay little and have no exposure to taxes in your personal life or work
You do not, have not, and do not intend to own, start or operate a business
9) Outside of TulsaNow, you do not read, watch, or listen to information you disagree with
10) You hate those with other viewpoints, myself. foremost

Grade away.  I am of the impression that you are uneducated on the topics you raise, have no experience in the matters, and only want to see an affirmation of your beliefs.  I grow tired of that game.

[FOTD]

Funny. You seem to think that these are inconsistencies when you constantly utilize other topic comments to draw a negative picture of members.

Foreclosures up %68 in November.....credit is drying up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_bi_ge/foreclosure_rates_3


Little world indeed.

[cannon_fodder]

I pretty well utilize everything anyone has ever done, said, or posted when drawing a picture of them.  Don't you?  It would make little sense to draw a picture of someone based on a single occurrence and ignoring the rest of the picture.  But I will take it I'm dead on in my assessment.

and BTW, the assessment was not overtly negative.   Maybe accusing you of hating those with opposing viewpoint was negative, but little else.  If you are, in fact, wholly uneducated in economics - stating so is not a negative assessment in any way.   I am totally uneducated in chemical engineering, that's not a negative comment but the truth.
- - -

If you look at the article you posted, foreclosures are up 68 percent... not percent 68.  It's right there in the first sentence.  In fact, %68 is a meaningless garble of characters in the English language.  Such a simple thing to correct, yet you insist on being wrong.  A wonderful example of how you would rather remain wrong than be corrected.

and FYI... foreclosures were not up 68% in November.  They were up 8%.   The number of foreclosures in November compared to last Nov. is up 68%.  There is a huge difference.

It is also worth noting that the numbers include everything down to default notices.  Many of those default notices will not actually enter foreclosure considering the banks have little incentive to take the property (which is often worth less than the note now).

With that caveat, yes; as predicted the foreclosures are rising.  They should continue to do so for another year or so before leveling out.  When the BOOM was rolling I wondered how people were affording to live in houses that were 50% of the cost of living and how, even in Tulsa, so many new homes were being constructed.  Just did not make sense to me.  I hope builder learn about over supply, lenders learn about credit risk, and buyers learn what an interest rate is.

Per Credit Crunch: high risk loans are suffering a credit crunch.  Moderate credit is seeing slight effects and those companies and people with good credit may see more ease in borrowing (as credit tightens at the bottom more is available for more secure loans).  A great incentive to pay your bills on time, mind your credit lines, and avoid bankruptcy.

A glut of credit cause the problem, a reduction is therefor essential in correcting it.

[FOTD]

"%68 is a meaningless garble of characters '...

That was obviously 68 percent.
The article link was posted and reported that foreclosures were up %68 over last November. That's rather large. Instead of attacking the messenger, try attacking the problem. yes, the ability to pay off bills immediately works fine for those who can. How many are living on the edge?

"NEW YORK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended sharply lower on Monday on worries the housing slump was dragging on the economy at the same time that inflation was posing a growing menace.

Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average .DJI fell 172.65 points, or 1.29 percent, to end unofficialy at 13,167.20. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index .SPX was down 22.03 points, or 1.50 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,445.92. The Nasdaq Composite Index .IXIC was down 61.28 points, or 2.32 percent, to close unofficially at 2,574.46. (Reporting by Caroline Valetkevitch; Editing by Jan Paschal) "

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1764225020071217


Outside of Oklahoma, the American economy is stagnating with the likelihood of a "session" of some nature over the next couple of years. Looks like the neo con economic theory of reinflating the economy through huge expenditures in the MIC will not work out to be quite what they anticipated.

And then there's the problem these neo cons have created by handing the states the weight of
deficits...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/state_finances;_ylt=An5P90RizzFViw9QwAAPH8Cs0NUE

"We're at the early stages of some pretty serious problems and whether or not those get worse depends on what happens with the national economy," said Corina Eckl, NCSL's fiscal program director."

Time to buy snap on tools?