Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricco67

Buy! What to buy?!?

Recommended Posts

I've always had the "Buy and hold" mentality when it came to stocks, and I'm just seeing a BUNCH of opportunity. I already sank some "beer money" in stocks over the past few days.

Needless to say, there are stocks that have taken a substantial hit, but I see it as a buying opportunity. Which ones do you think have taken an undeserved hit that are bound to make a substantial rebound when we (eventually) recover. But there are too many for one person to research.

Any opinions of what you might buy?

BTW: I buy to hold for 5 yrs or more, I'm not out for a quick buck, so I'm curious to hear your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why buy now? Worse, why buy a couple of days ago? The American economy is tanking again, based on numbers that have been coming out. Additionally, the Tea Party hostage taking forced Obama to crater, meaning there will be little or no help from the government in the form of stimulus spending. Europe is in shambles. If no one is buying, and there is no spending, why would stocks improve?

The stock market loves spending and stability. Regardless your views on the deficit, cutting government spending, most of which goes to consumers and businesses, takes away money that would eventually get spent on goods and services. The market doesn't like that. Instability makes people nervous, further restricting spending. Add in the fact that there was no rational reason for the Dow's 93% increase over the last two and a half years, and the only reasonable conclusion is that you bought too soon.

But, hey, it's your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why buy now? Worse, why buy a couple of days ago? The American economy is tanking again, based on numbers that have been coming out. Additionally, the Tea Party hostage taking forced Obama to crater, meaning there will be little or no help from the government in the form of stimulus spending. Europe is in shambles. If no one is buying, and there is no spending, why would stocks improve?

The stock market loves spending and stability. Regardless your views on the deficit, cutting government spending, most of which goes to consumers and businesses, takes away money that would eventually get spent on goods and services. The market doesn't like that. Instability makes people nervous, further restricting spending. Add in the fact that there was no rational reason for the Dow's 93% increase over the last two and a half years, and the only reasonable conclusion is that you bought too soon.

But, hey, it's your money.

To answer the original post, I still like XOM - it is one of the absolute strongest companies, if not the strongest company in the world. It has a decent 2.4% dividend and not too over-valued with a P/E of 9.52...if we continue to see the market slide I expect an increase in the dividend.

I however do see the market going further down; it was over-valued I agree with RED there. I think we are looking to see it drop to 10,000. I may buy a few select stocks on the way down, b/c it is tough to pick the true bottom...but I am like you - I do not day trade, I buy once maybe twice a month and generally hold onto my choices (all of which have dividends) for periods of 2 years or more.

In reply to RED I do not however see this as the fault of the tea party - that is just MSNBC liberal BS...heck whenever you hear the same things from David Axelrod, Barney Frank, and Joe Biden, you know its BS. You can not spend your way out of a financial problem. The government is broke, and they need to stop spending the money and get the debt fixed. The debt has created the instability...not the people sent there to fix it. The pathetic cuts that went through with the debt ceiling did nothing but put a band-aid on a person who was just cut in half! It was nothing. There is literally billions upon billions of corporate money that is sitting on the sidelines waiting to do something. It is just sitting there because we have the most anti-business president ever. The only thing Obama has been effective at doing is increasing government regulation and government size. Neither of those things are good for the economy. That is where the instability really is. Business does not trust that they can invest their money without fear of the government regulating it into non-existence.

There are certain industries that require some government regulation, but the level of government regulation in the everyday business world makes it very expensive to run a business...I deal with it on a daily basis; it's daunting and pointless....Business is efficient when it spends money, its innovative, creative and effective. Business actually tries to stay in front of the game, while the government is reactionary...its spending is ineffective, in the wrong places, and too late. We would be better off with the money in the hands of the people. Most people live check/check so giving them more money will increase spending in the right places (where its wanted and needed)- not where the government or some politician wants it spent.

The government does inject money into the free market by spending, but that money is so ineffectively and inefficiently spent that we would be much better off if the regulators would just take a few steps back and let business do what it does best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the writing on the wall in May at DOW 12400, and pulled all my IRA out of the various funds, realized the earnings, and placed everything into a holding account. Same with my wife's 401k.

Watching my google spreadsheet that is currently tracking what would have been had I stayed in all my funds the past 2 weeks has been glorious.. so far I'm at 14% saved.

I feel I timed it pretty well so far and it's going to feel pretty damn good when I get back in within a few hundred from the bottom... whenever that may be.

Ricco, I second Red.. This ride isn't finished going down yet.

So far the Dow has lost about 13% from its 12800 high in April. For comparison, the correction in summer 2010 was also 13%.

But in the last 2 weeks of hell, you hear less "market correction" and more" double dip".

The Dow lost over 50% in the 17 months starting Oct 07.

While we all hope it doesn't get that extreme again, Seeing the Dow go below 10k wouldn't surprise me at this point.

I'd hold off on buying.

Or I could be wrong and maybe this week will be the low point. Tis your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the writing on the wall in May at DOW 12400, and pulled all my IRA out of the various funds, realized the earnings, and placed everything into a holding account. Same with my wife's 401k.

Watching my google spreadsheet that is currently tracking what would have been had I stayed in all my funds the past 2 weeks has been glorious.. so far I'm at 14% saved.

I feel I timed it pretty well so far and it's going to feel pretty damn good when I get back in within a few hundred from the bottom... whenever that may be.

Ricco, I second Red.. This ride isn't finished going down yet.

So far the Dow has lost about 13% from its 12800 high in April. For comparison, the correction in summer 2010 was also 13%.

But in the last 2 weeks of hell, you hear less "market correction" and more" double dip".

The Dow lost over 50% in the 17 months starting Oct 07.

While we all hope it doesn't get that extreme again, Seeing the Dow go below 10k wouldn't surprise me at this point.

I'd hold off on buying.

Or I could be wrong and maybe this week will be the low point. Tis your money.

Well, the money I'm going to be putting in is what I call "Beer money". Money that I would blow on a good weekend and won't really be missed. I started pulling out in June and I'm glad that I did as well.

It would be THAT money and additional funds that I would use to buy things at, what I thought, were inflated prices. Historically, I've purchased when people are panicking. As long as I'm willing to buy and hold, I should be okay. It's not like I'm sacrificing mortgage or bill money.

If it was easy to know when the bottom is, everyone would be making money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the money I'm going to be putting in is what I call "Beer money". Money that I would blow on a good weekend and won't really be missed. I started pulling out in June and I'm glad that I did as well.

It would be THAT money and additional funds that I would use to buy things at, what I thought, were inflated prices. Historically, I've purchased when people are panicking. As long as I'm willing to buy and hold, I should be okay. It's not like I'm sacrificing mortgage or bill money.

If it was easy to know when the bottom is, everyone would be making money.

True, but I rather use my beer money for drinking rather than flushing it down the toilet.

With this transition from correction to double dip, I think the panic is just starting.

Yes, if you buy and hold, you'll be okay... but you'll be much more okay if don't waste the first 2-3 months just catching back up to your buy-in point.

True.. but for me personally, I feel I got out high enough and that its going to go low enough that i can miss the bottom by a few hundred and I'm still gonna come out smelling like roses that smell like money.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not like im buying today, but there was temptation, though.

I think the sharks are going to come tomorrow for a strong short term rally.

Edited by ricco67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't buy anything until every last teabagger is dead. They are America's cancer. And they would sooner see America go up in flames than to see an Exxon exec give up his corporate jet so that poor granny can get her meds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you took our advice today. :blink:

I'm modifying my earlier "10k wouldn't surprise me at this point."

We'll have that by Friday alone.

Ricco.. I'll take your bet. No rally tomorrow.. down another 200.

Edited by Highway6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't buy anything until every last teabagger is dead. They are America's cancer. And they would sooner see America go up in flames than to see an Exxon exec give up his corporate jet so that poor granny can get her meds.

I think it was CNN that had an article a few weeks back .. something along the lines of even if you did tax corporate jets and if you taxed everyone over $250,000 at 100% for a yr... you reduce the deficit by some miniscule % that started with a decimal point.

The problems we face are so enormously skewed towards the spending side of things.. teabaggers aren't the reason we lost AAA.

EDIT:

Correction.. several article stated that if everyone over $100,000 was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover the increase of the deficit this year.

What is that increase for the yr? a Trillion ?

Now obviously 100,000ers aren't millionaires, and you can't tax people at 100%.. but i still think that speaks to the fact that if you did increase tax on millionaires ( 250,000+) by 5-15%.. it's really not going to do much. There just aren't nearly enough millionaires to cover the exorbitant spending.

I'm all for rewriting the tax code.. but i wish they could just get it over with. As long as there is uncertainty, businesses won't grow or hire.. and that's the big problem. 10%+ unemployment. Lack of jobs, and lack of tax payers.

Edited by Highway6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm modifying my earlier "10k wouldn't surprise me at this point."

We'll have that by Friday alone.

Ricco.. I'll take your bet. No rally tomorrow.. down another 200.

Cool,a beer that it will bounce at least 100 before it dives again?

I'm not buring until I can find something that had long term potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was CNN that had an article a few weeks back .. something along the lines of even if you did tax corporate jets and if you taxed everyone over $250,000 at 100% for a yr... you reduce the deficit by some miniscule % that started with a decimal point.

The problems we face are so enormously skewed towards the spending side of things.. teabaggers aren't the reason we lost AAA.

EDIT:

Correction.. several article stated that if everyone over $100,000 was taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover the increase of the deficit this year.

What is that increase for the yr? a Trillion ?

Now obviously 100,000ers aren't millionaires, and you can't tax people at 100%.. but i still think that speaks to the fact that if you did increase tax on millionaires ( 250,000+) by 5-15%.. it's really not going to do much. There just aren't nearly enough millionaires to cover the exorbitant spending.

I'm all for rewriting the tax code.. but i wish they could just get it over with. As long as there is uncertainty, businesses won't grow or hire.. and that's the big problem. 10%+ unemployment. Lack of jobs, and lack of tax payers.

This has been repeated so many different ways, and nearly everyone who repeats it, gets it wrong. However, the basic premise that taxing the ultra high earners at 100% won't cover the deficit is essentially correct. Here is Politico's version...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60717.html

People and households earning $1 million or more annually made up just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed in 2009, and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more.

Though the tax rate for Americans earning a gross adjusted income of $1 million or more averaged 24.4 percent, up from 23.1 percent in 2008, that’s still lower than the 28.5 percent rate they paid in 2002 when President George W. Bush was in office.

And, the data show, the 235,413 taxpayers who reported earning seven digits or more in 2009 took in a total of $726.9 billion — yet 1,470 paid not a penny of income taxes. In 2007, 959 Americans earning $1 million or more paid no income taxes.

Even though the article is pointing out that 1,470 million dollar earners paid no taxes, they DO mention the total income of the group of million dollar earners is $726.9 Billion, which is only one half of the current year's deficit. So, taxing millionaires at 100% wouldn't even cover half the deficit. It is not clear how much income is earned by those making $250,000+ or $100,000+.

Here's something else I found. Total Income for ALL US earners in 2010 was $12.53 Trillion. To cover a $3.7 Trillion budget would require a 29.5% tax rate on every single taxpayer with no deductions. That is not doable. The budget must come down to a more reasonable number. If a stripped down tax code gave a $10,000 deduction to every earner (no child deductions), that would exempt the first $1.4 Trillion in earnings, leaving $11.1 Trillion available to be taxed. One flat 25% rate would produce $2.775 Trillion in tax revenue.

Food for thought.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been repeated so many different ways, and nearly everyone who repeats it, gets it wrong. However, the basic premise that taxing the ultra high earners at 100% won't cover the deficit is essentially correct. Here is Politico's version...

http://www.politico....0811/60717.html

Even though the article is pointing out that 1,470 million dollar earners paid no taxes, they DO mention the total income of the group of million dollar earners is $726.9 Billion, which is only one half of the current year's deficit. So, taxing millionaires at 100% wouldn't even cover half the deficit. It is not clear how much income is earned by those making $250,000+ or $100,000+.

Here's something else I found. Total Income for ALL US earners in 2010 was $12.53 Trillion. To cover a $3.7 Trillion budget would require a 29.5% tax rate on every single taxpayer with no deductions. That is not doable. The budget must come down to a more reasonable number. If a stripped down tax code gave a $10,000 deduction to every earner (no child deductions), that would exempt the first $1.4 Trillion in earnings, leaving $11.1 Trillion available to be taxed. One flat 25% rate would produce $2.775 Trillion in tax revenue.

Food for thought.

Well.. i thought I might be wrong, so I did try to correct it.

So if taxing millionaires at 100% would get us only $700 billion.. ( not that that is small fries, but it is compared to 14 trillion) ... what the heck is raising the tax rate by 5-10% going to achieve?

Where does the 24.4% average come in for millionaires, considering the current tax brackets are

0% Bracket $0 – $8,500

15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400

33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150

35% Bracket $379,150+

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't know what that number represents. So what exactly was being proposed by the left that the tea party stopped? Raising the top bracket to 40-50% for millionaires ?

Raising the 2nd to top bracket 5-10% for the other millionaires that make $174,000 ?

I'm sorry.. I can understand how the left is up an arms at the whole perceived injustice of it all (grandma's medicine vs a corporate jet), but to me it seems like the problem is so much more on the expenditures side of things that even had the left gotten the tax concessions they wanted, we would still be in the exact same mess, still downgraded, still up a creek without a paddle.

I would be all for higher taxes, and even rewriting the tax code to try to achieve a more across the board fairness, if it weren't for the timing. It the tea party were arguing for never raising taxes ever again, i think the left, and the mainstream right would have room to call them loonies... but i see it as them saying not to raise taxes at this time. With the mess we are in now.. i do think there is something to not raising taxes. I just don't see how taking more money away individuals and businesses is stimulative when Gvt doesn't create jobs for the private sector.. the private sector does.

Edited by Highway6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a neat budget puzzle to fix the deficit from last November http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html. I was able to solve the deficit via the combination of program cuts and tax increases listed below (about 50/50). If only the real world could be so easy and straightforward...

- Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

- Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013

- Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels

- Allow expiration of Bush tax cuts for income above $250,000 a year

- Eliminate tax loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher

- Bank Tax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. i thought I might be wrong, so I did try to correct it.

So if taxing millionaires at 100% would get us only $700 billion.. ( not that that is small fries, but it is compared to 14 trillion) ... what the heck is raising the tax rate by 5-10% going to achieve?

Where does the 24.4% average come in for millionaires, considering the current tax brackets are

0% Bracket $0 – $8,500

15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400

33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150

35% Bracket $379,150+

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't know what that number represents. So what exactly was being proposed by the left that the tea party stopped? Raising the top bracket to 40-50% for millionaires ?

Raising the 2nd to top bracket 5-10% for the other millionaires that make $174,000 ?

I'm sorry.. I can understand how the left is up an arms at the whole perceived injustice of it all (grandma's medicine vs a corporate jet), but to me it seems like the problem is so much more on the expenditures side of things that even had the left gotten the tax concessions they wanted, we would still be in the exact same mess, still downgraded, still up a creek without a paddle.

I would be all for higher taxes, and even rewriting the tax code to try to achieve a more across the board fairness, if it weren't for the timing. It the tea party were arguing for never raising taxes ever again, i think the left, and the mainstream right would have room to call them loonies... but i see it as them saying not to raise taxes at this time. With the mess we are in now.. i do think there is something to not raising taxes. I just don't see how taking more money away individuals and businesses is stimulative when Gvt doesn't create jobs for the private sector.. the private sector does.

The Democrats were asking for two things, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for incomes over a certain level (it varied from $200k to a million), and closing of some tax loopholes. The top tax rate would increase to 39.6%. The combination of cuts and loopholes would bring in about $40 Billion per year. Not enough, but every bit helps. The Democrats conceded that the spending side had to shrink, they just disagreed on what and how much.

Tea partiers are against taxes being raised EVER. In fact, they want them lowered. Yes, they are lunatics. Tax revenue has already dropped $600 Billion from 2007, and the tea partiers are acting as if they went up. They are not reasonable people, and are useful only in counteracting the far left who wants an expansion of government. Both are outliers, but the tea partiers are winning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats were asking for two things, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for incomes over a certain level (it varied from $200k to a million), and closing of some tax loopholes. The top tax rate would increase to 39.6%. The combination of cuts and loopholes would bring in about $40 Billion per year. Not enough, but every bit helps. The Democrats conceded that the spending side had to shrink, they just disagreed on what and how much.

Tea partiers are against taxes being raised EVER. In fact, they want them lowered. Yes, they are lunatics. Tax revenue has already dropped $600 Billion from 2007, and the tea partiers are acting as if they went up. They are not reasonable people, and are useful only in counteracting the far left who wants an expansion of government. Both are outliers, but the tea partiers are winning.

I would not call the tea party folks lunatics.....they are taking a strong stand saying enough is enough on what has been a very bad 12 years of over-indulgence. Spending is the problem. The debt is just the symptom that we see. You can raise taxes to cover up the problem for a little while, but its just like taking an asprin before they amputate your leg...it will numb the pain for a few seconds, but it is not going to do any good at all once they start cutting. The democrats answer to EVERY problem is to throw money at the problem. The tea party folks say - no more taxes your killing jobs and growth - you need to cut back spending. PERIOD. The cuts that got the debt ceiling raised were TINY. Not just small...TINY. They are cuts over 10 years - 10 years, and they are not even defined in the bill. ITS PATHETIC.

We need to cut everything back....and we need a stable tax code. Both sides are guilty of over indulgence....Our military budget is something like 800 billion dollars/yr....the next closest military budget in the world is China with 78 Billion.

Cut spending to 2007 levels now. Reduce the federal work force and reform the freaking tax code. Get out of Afganistan and Iraq....withdraw foreign troops from everywhere except Asia.

The tea party folks are not crazy though- they are 100x more stable and correct than any of the far left. The far left are the most unreasonable, emotional, irrational group of people. The far right are fighting for common sense....dont spend more than you make. If you cant pay for it now, you cant have it. If you continue to give to those who dont work, they will never try to pick themselves up. Just calling people lunatics, shows that your ability to rationalize what they are fighting for has been compromised by your closed mindedness and dislike for someone who does not fight for what you agree with.

The democrats absolutely must concede that nobody should be taxed above 35%

The republicans absolutely must concede that tax breaks/loopholes must be closed so that 35% can be obtained.

The democrats must concede that social/environmental programs must be cut, and handouts scaled way back.

The republicans must concede that the military budget must be cut.

There is a tremendous amount of waste in the government, and if one party is far closer to being correct it is the republicans and the tea party. The democrats only answer to every problem is spending. Its played out. There is no money left. You cant spend your way out of this problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The combination of cuts and loopholes would bring in about $40 Billion per year. Not enough, but every bit helps.

Tea partiers are against taxes being raised EVER. In fact, they want them lowered. Yes, they are lunatics. Tax revenue has already dropped $600 Billion from 2007, and the tea partiers are acting as if they went up. They are not reasonable people, and are useful only in counteracting the far left who wants an expansion of government. Both are outliers, but the tea partiers are winning.

I'm just not sure how that makes the TeaParty the uncompromising bad guys. Seems that any of Pelosi and pals that were being stubborn to compromise on principle alone, since what they wanted achieved so little, should be held to account even more so. Gee.. what terrorists.. causing all this hub-bub over $40 billion.

Furthermore, This "But we always raise the debt ceiling, every few years, done by Rs and Ds, and it's never been an issue" argument from the left. It's not comparable once you consider the magnitude of the debt ceiling and its relationship to GDP. IT shouldn't be routine. And if we were serious on reigning in debt, there would be no reason to raise that ceiling.

We didn't get downgraded because our debt amount is $40 billion more per year than the S&P would have liked to see... I realize we had to raise the debt limit or face default.. but the situation we've put ourselves in of having to raise the debt limit, when our debt is already so stratospheric, that is the reason we got downgraded. How much more of a downgrade would we have faced had the tea party not been there to fight this debt limit increase ?

Cool,a beer that it will bounce at least 100 before it dives again?

I'm not buring until I can find something that had long term potential.

Not looking good on my end... but looking good in general.

Edited by Highway6
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just not sure how that makes the TeaParty the uncompromising bad guys. Seems that any of Pelosi and pals that were being stubborn to compromise on principle alone, since what they wanted achieved so little, should be held to account even more so. Gee.. what terrorists.. causing all this hub-bub over $40 billion.

Furthermore, This "But we always raise the debt ceiling, every few years, done by Rs and Ds, and it's never been an issue" argument from the left. It's not comparable once you consider the magnitude of the debt ceiling and its relationship to GDP. IT shouldn't be routine. And if we were serious on reigning in debt, there would be no reason to raise that ceiling. We didn't get downgraded because our debt amount is $40 billion more per year than the S&P would have liked to see... I realize we had to raise the debt limit or face default.. but the situation we've put ourselves in of having to raise the debt limit, when our debt is already so stratospheric, that is the reason we got downgraded. How much more of a downgrade would we have faced had the tea party not been there to fight this debt limit increase ?

Not looking good on my end... but looking good in general.

I prefer shiner. :)

I hate autocorrect.

And I'm still not buying.

The odds are its going to collapse again tomorrow.

Edited by ricco67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rally tomorrow.. down another 200.

Don't quit your day job. Trying to predict the future is such a b!tch - especially when you are no longer able to go back and delete old postings. :)

Edited by Mister X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't quit your day job. Trying to predict the future is such a b!tch - especially when you are no longer able to go back and delete old postings. :)

Ricco made the first prediction. I would have countered either way he went just to make the day interesting.

I do have to admit.. this beer is really going to set me back. I sure hope I've learned my lesson.

Edited by Highway6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow can easily go either way, but I wouldn't doubt if the reverse would happen and dive like a stone as the sharks unload and make a profit on what they purchased.

The computer traders are probably going to dictate the market for a few days afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats were asking for two things, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for incomes over a certain level (it varied from $200k to a million), and closing of some tax loopholes. The top tax rate would increase to 39.6%. The combination of cuts and loopholes would bring in about $40 Billion per year. Not enough, but every bit helps. The Democrats conceded that the spending side had to shrink, they just disagreed on what and how much.

Tea partiers are against taxes being raised EVER. In fact, they want them lowered. Yes, they are lunatics. Tax revenue has already dropped $600 Billion from 2007, and the tea partiers are acting as if they went up. They are not reasonable people, and are useful only in counteracting the far left who wants an expansion of government. Both are outliers, but the tea partiers are winning.

Although I would concur that most Tea Partiers are lunatics, I would be willing to say the same about most human populations when politicized. Still, a thoughtful individual would recognize that recent declines in tax revenue represent an exogenous phenomenon that doesn't help anybody. What that reasonable person may be concerned about, however, is out of control government spending by both major parties. It doesn't matter whether that spending is financed directly by way of taxes, whether money got printed and everybody's money just became worth less, or whether treasury debt sapped the market for consumer and business debt. When the government spends money, we all pay. Resources are allocated out of the private sector. The same reasonable person that does not approve of this might throw their hat in with the Tea Party lunatics instead of the Republican or Democrat lunatics if they think that doing so will enable the least misguided set of people to gain control and possibly screw up fewer times on the margin.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't buy anything until every last teabagger is dead. They are America's cancer. And they would sooner see America go up in flames than to see an Exxon exec give up his corporate jet so that poor granny can get her meds.

Are you talking about the tea party? hmmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the tea party? hmmmmmm

Teabaggers are utterly clueless. Don't look now but someone is using your face to pleasure himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teabaggers are utterly clueless. Don't look now but someone is using your face to pleasure himself.

Initially, I found the tea party interesting, but after awhile, it just seemed like there was a radical element that took the thing over.

No matter what political bent you have, there HAS to be a compromise, and a compromise basically means that EVERYONE not getting everything their way.

I swear, no one wants to give an inch for fear of antagonizing the various constituents in their respective territories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially, I found the tea party interesting, but after awhile, it just seemed like there was a radical element that took the thing over.

No matter what political bent you have, there HAS to be a compromise, and a compromise basically means that EVERYONE not getting everything their way.

I swear, no one wants to give an inch for fear of antagonizing the various constituents in their respective territories.

The racial element is only there because that is what the news media WANTS to report on. It makes good news....half the racists in the movement are plants by half wit liberals. That statement and the utterly ridiculous belief that there is a predominate racial prejudice in the tea party infuriates me because it is the last ditch effort of a losing party full of half wits to negatively label something that opposes them in an effort to marginalize the movement. Its totally ridiculous to say that a movement that wants to cut spending and prevent taxes from being raised is racist. I oppose almost everything Obama has done, and it is not because he is half black...I oppose the half that is white too. He is just a terrible president.

The tea party is right in this instance. We have to cut spending. It is not something that can just be pushed further down the road. The Obama admin had 2 years of both chambers and NEVER passed a budget. The amount of government spending has expanded so rapidly that the only logical thing that can be done is to stop spending money, and not small cuts...huge enormous cuts. Taxes will need to be raised eventually but it is foolish to even contemplate raising taxes without corresponding huge cuts in spending and a balanced budget amendment at the same time....Democrats were not willing to even make an effort at real cuts, so the Tea Party made no effort to bend on taxes. The thought of a balanced budget is repulsive to the democrats....They consider the most basic requirement of any entity (a balanced budget) to be completely untouchable to their constituents. The Tea Party did not win the debt ceiling debate, they lost. They compromised....the democrats got more money to squander and the amount of cuts (less than 1%) was pathetic at best.

The downgrade was not because of instability caused by the tea party - the downgrade was because of instability caused by an unserviceable debt. We CUT our way to another 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit this year. That is pathetic.

Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective: U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

WOW - 1 whole percent. Big cut....we still added 1.6 TRILLION dollars to the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tea party is racist. If you are smart, you will keep your distance. Mark my words, any affiliation with them will come back to haunt you later. Do yourself a favor and find another group to exploit your ignorance and to follow blindly like sheep.

I know it's very difficult for some people to do their own thinking and act in the interest of what is best for ALL Americans (not just the folks who make more than $200,000 per year), but you'll be a better person for it.

Edited by Mister X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good example of people having their own perceptions clouded by the bias they hold against anything against their own views.

I didn't even say a word about race or racism.

C wean get back to the topic of discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good example of people having their own perceptions clouded by the bias they hold against anything against their own views.

I didn't even say a word about race or racism.

C wean get back to the topic of discussion?

:lol:

If a poster writes "radical", and another poster goes off on a racial screed, is that an indication of latent racism on the part of the 2nd poster?

Back to the topic, I bought a little bit of XOM today, and a little bit of Ford. In spite of the 500 point dropoff, I am only down 1% on my purchases. We'll see how they hold up in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been eyeing some of the smaller priced ones that I think took an unjustified his like oracle, but ive been thinking about a bit of apple, my concern as to how effective it would be without jobs. Or how much of a hit it would take if/when he dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jobs death will hurt Apple, as he seems to drive most of the innovation there. I'm starting to suspect he is the head borg, and when he dies, the colony dies. Apple was certainly drifting when he was away. Apple is also pretty high priced right now, a doubling of stock price would mean a market cap of over 600 million dollars, and the company isn't worth that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good example of people having their own perceptions clouded by the bias they hold against anything against their own views.

I didn't even say a word about race or racism.

C wean get back to the topic of discussion?

I hold no bias. I have become just as disenchanted with the republican party as the democrat party....and the racial component is the only perceived radical element of the tea party. If you were not referring to the tea party as racists, then what was the reference to?

Back on topic though - I am going to revise my predictions downward. Although I too bought XOM yesterday....I previously put the DOW floor at 10,000 because I believe it to be a mental roadblock It is the point where many investors got in, and so they are unwilling to sell below that point...Im going to revise it now to 9000. If France is downgraded, and it should be, it will rock the market again. If the market falls again today, and oil dips further down we are going to see a big hit on all oil producers and service companies....Look to Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Baker taking big hits

I am following Baker closely. They possess the most technology related to fracing of land based wells, and possess the most equipment to complete the process. Fracing utilizes a tremendous amount of assets, so as long as the EPA does not shut the process down, look for Baker to make substantial future gains as the other companies are all already playing catch up. P/E is above my max and dividend is too low, but if the price falls enough it may be a good play....its already at 58 from 80.

I also like Johnson & Johnson...large assets, heavily purchased products that are used in day/day life...P/E is a little bit high, but they have a decent dividend that has increased year over year. When the market is like it is I am looking for discount stocks that pay relatively high dividends for my long term positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The racial element is only there because that is what the news media WANTS to report on. It makes good news....half the racists in the movement are plants by half wit liberals. That statement and the utterly ridiculous belief that there is a predominate racial prejudice in the tea party infuriates me because it is the last ditch effort of a losing party full of half wits to negatively label something that opposes them in an effort to marginalize the movement. Its totally ridiculous to say that a movement that wants to cut spending and prevent taxes from being raised is racist. I oppose almost everything Obama has done, and it is not because he is half black...I oppose the half that is white too. He is just a terrible president.

The tea party is right in this instance. We have to cut spending. It is not something that can just be pushed further down the road. The Obama admin had 2 years of both chambers and NEVER passed a budget. The amount of government spending has expanded so rapidly that the only logical thing that can be done is to stop spending money, and not small cuts...huge enormous cuts. Taxes will need to be raised eventually but it is foolish to even contemplate raising taxes without corresponding huge cuts in spending and a balanced budget amendment at the same time....Democrats were not willing to even make an effort at real cuts, so the Tea Party made no effort to bend on taxes. The thought of a balanced budget is repulsive to the democrats....They consider the most basic requirement of any entity (a balanced budget) to be completely untouchable to their constituents. The Tea Party did not win the debt ceiling debate, they lost. They compromised....the democrats got more money to squander and the amount of cuts (less than 1%) was pathetic at best.

The downgrade was not because of instability caused by the tea party - the downgrade was because of instability caused by an unserviceable debt. We CUT our way to another 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit this year. That is pathetic.

Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective: U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

WOW - 1 whole percent. Big cut....we still added 1.6 TRILLION dollars to the debt.

I understand and agree with the need to cut spending... but you DO know that our population is growing right? I don't agree with federal programs/grants that cost $15,000,000 to study the mating behaviour of beavers or similar programs... Perhaps we should start with this kind of wasteful spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The racial element is only there because that is what the news media WANTS to report on. It makes good news....half the racists in the movement are plants by half wit liberals. That statement and the utterly ridiculous belief that there is a predominate racial prejudice in the tea party infuriates me because it is the last ditch effort of a losing party full of half wits to negatively label something that opposes them in an effort to marginalize the movement. Its totally ridiculous to say that a movement that wants to cut spending and prevent taxes from being raised is racist. I oppose almost everything Obama has done, and it is not because he is half black...I oppose the half that is white too. He is just a terrible president.

The tea party is right in this instance. We have to cut spending. It is not something that can just be pushed further down the road. The Obama admin had 2 years of both chambers and NEVER passed a budget. The amount of government spending has expanded so rapidly that the only logical thing that can be done is to stop spending money, and not small cuts...huge enormous cuts. Taxes will need to be raised eventually but it is foolish to even contemplate raising taxes without corresponding huge cuts in spending and a balanced budget amendment at the same time....Democrats were not willing to even make an effort at real cuts, so the Tea Party made no effort to bend on taxes. The thought of a balanced budget is repulsive to the democrats....They consider the most basic requirement of any entity (a balanced budget) to be completely untouchable to their constituents. The Tea Party did not win the debt ceiling debate, they lost. They compromised....the democrats got more money to squander and the amount of cuts (less than 1%) was pathetic at best.

The downgrade was not because of instability caused by the tea party - the downgrade was because of instability caused by an unserviceable debt. We CUT our way to another 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit this year. That is pathetic.

Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective: U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

WOW - 1 whole percent. Big cut....we still added 1.6 TRILLION dollars to the debt.

Uh... You DO know that S&P themselves stated that their downgrade was mostly due to the debt/spending/ceiling gridlock in congress, right? The other factor was their belief in the inadequacy of the deal to stabilize spending/debt by the "middle of the decade". I dont know about y'all but the "middle of the decade" sounds a bit arbitrary to me... so I think it is safe to say this bit can be discounted slightly if not mostly and that the real reasons where political.

Unwillingness to pay a debt is far different than being able to.

Forgot to include link:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/sps-credit-rating-cut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand and agree with the need to cut spending... but you DO know that our population is growing right? I don't agree with federal programs/grants that cost $15,000,000 to study the mating behaviour of beavers or similar programs... Perhaps we should start with this kind of wasteful spending.

There is only one answer to the current problem we have. It is to cut spending. We can not spend our way out of the problem, and the growth in population is not keeping pace with the growth of the deficit. The servicing of the interest on the debt alone is going to become unmanageable if we continue on course. I agree that you start with the silly stuff, but there is no political will to even do that. We simply need to cut across the boards possibly to pre-2007 levels. If you do that, nobody is getting special treatment or the appearance of favoritism. If the Dems dont want massive cuts in SS and medicaid then they need to pass a balanced budget amendment and then find the cuts to other areas to get there. The military is over funded, the right needs to recognize that and reduce it.

We have a spending problem. There is zero political will on the left to stop spending. The left wants the government to spend more because the politicians on the left want to get re-elected.

The downgrade was political, but it was done for a good reason. The left has nothing to gain by getting their financial affairs in order. They only lose voters as they cut services and spending. The right has everything to gain by getting the financial affairs in order....they gain voters by cutting spending. The divide between the two is growing as it becomes not the haves vs the have nots, but rather it is the people who are willing to work vs those who are not. The expectations that a high school diploma will get you a $25 an hour job somewhere is unreasonable now. Our labor market is now competing globally....Our workers need to realize that the days of just going to work in a factory for a good middle class life are gone. China is willing to do that work for far less than our workers. We need a new model going forward, and continuing to take from those who are still prospering to give to those who are not is not going to create the model of success we will need for the future. The entitlements and handouts are going to stifle the innovation needed for us to revive our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following people would like to thank the tea party and the republicans for not raising their taxes. The middle class desperately needs to keep up the fight on behalf of the wealthy as there is no nobler cause. Every yacht helps but more corporate jets are still badly needed.

Bill Gates $54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft

Warren Buffett $45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway

Larry Ellison $27 B 66 Woodside, CA Oracle

Christy Walton & family

$24 B 56 Jackson, WY Walmart

Charles Koch

$21.5 B 75 Wichita, KS Diversified

David Koch

$21.5 B 70 New York, NY Diversified

Jim Walton

$20.1 B 63 Bentonville, AR Walmart

Alice Walton

$20 B 61 Fort Worth, TX Walmart

S. Robson Walton

$19.7 B 67 Bentonville, AR Walmart

Michael Bloomberg

$18 B 69 New York, NY Bloomberg

Larry Page

$15 B 38 Palo Alto, CA Google

Sergey Brin

$15 B 37 San Francisco, CA Google

Sheldon Adelson

$14.7 B 77 Las Vegas, NV casinos

George Soros

$14.2 B 80 Westchester, NY hedge funds

Michael Dell

$14 B 46 Austin, TX Dell

Steve Ballmer

$13.1 B 55 Seattle, WA Microsoft

Paul Allen

$12.7 B 58 Mercer Island, WA Microsoft, investments

Jeff Bezos

$12.6 B 47 Seattle, WA Amazon

Anne Cox Chambers

$12.5 B 91 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises

John Paulson

$12.4 B 55 New York, NY hedge funds

Donald Bren

$12 B 78 Newport Beach, CA real estate

Abigail Johnson

$11.3 B 49 Boston, MA Fidelity

Phil Knight

$11.1 B 73 Beaverton, OR Nike

Carl Icahn

$11 B 75 New York, NY leveraged buyouts

Ronald Perelman

$11 B 68 New York, NY leveraged buyouts

Forrest Mars

$10 B 79 Big Horn, WY candy, pet food

John Mars

$10 B 74 Jackson, WY candy, pet food

Jacqueline Mars

$10 B 71 The Plains, VA candy, pet food

George Kaiser

$9.4 B 68 Tulsa, OK oil & gas, banking

James Simons

$8.7 B 72 East Setauket, NY hedge funds

Len Blavatnik

$7.5 B 53 London Access Industries

Steve Cohen

$7.3 B 55 Greenwich, CT hedge funds

Edward Johnson

$7.1 B 80 Boston, MA Fidelity

Philip Anschutz

$7 B 71 Denver, CO Investments

Mark Zuckerberg

$6.9 B 26 Palo Alto, CA Facebook

James Goodnight

$6.9 B 68 Cary, NC SAS Institute

Jack Taylor & family

$6.5 B 88 St. Louis, MO Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Rupert Murdoch

$6.2 B 80 New York, NY News Corp

Jim Kennedy

$6.2 B 63 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises

Blair Parry-Okeden

$6.2 B 60 Scone Cox Enterprises

Samuel Newhouse

$6.2 B 83 New York, NY publishing

Steve Jobs

$6.1 B 56 Palo Alto, CA Apple, Pixar

Andrew Beal

$6 B 58 Dallas, TX bank, real estate

Eli Broad

$5.8 B 77 Los Angeles, CA Investments

Harold Hamm

$5.8 B 65 Oklahoma City, OK Continental Resources

Patrick Soon-Shiong

$5.6 B 59 Los Angeles, CA generic drugs

Pierre Omidyar

$5.5 B 43 Honolulu, HI Ebay

Eric Schmidt

$5.45 B 55 Atherton, CA Google

Donald Newhouse

$5.4 B 81 Somerset County, NJ publishing

Charles Butt & family

$5.3 B 73 San Antonio, TX supermarkets

John Menard

$5.2 B 71 Eau Claire, WI Retail

Richard Kinder

$5.2 B 66 Houston, TX pipelines

Charles Ergen

$5.2 B 58 Denver, CO EchoStar

David Geffen

$5.1 B 68 Malibu, CA movies, music

Harold Simmons

$5 B 79 Dallas, TX Investments

Ray Dalio

$5 B 61 Greenwich, CT hedge funds

Frederik G.H. Meijer

$4.9 B 91 Grand Rapids, MI supermarkets

Ira Rennert

$4.5 B 76 New York, NY Investments

Dennis Washington

$4.5 B 76 Missoula, MT construction, mining

Ralph Lauren

$4.4 B 71 New York, NY fashion and retail

Sam Zell

$4.4 B 69 Chicago, IL real estate, private equity

Richard DeVos

$4.3 B 85 Ada, MI Alticor

Richard LeFrak & family

$4.3 B 65 New York, NY real estate

David Tepper

$4.3 B 53 Milburn, NJ hedge funds

Ray Lee Hunt

$4.3 B 68 Dallas, TX Oil, real estate

Leonard Lauder

$4.2 B 78 New York, NY Estee Lauder

Lester Crown & family

$4.2 B 85 Wilmette, IL Investments

John Paul DeJoria

$4.2 B 67 Austin, TX hair products, tequila

Robert Rowling

$4.1 B 57 Dallas, TX Investments

Bruce Kovner

$4.1 B 66 New York, NY hedge funds

Stephen Schwarzman

$4.1 B 64 New York, NY Investments

Micky Arison

$4.1 B 61 Bal Harbour, FL Carnival Cruises

Roger Wang

$4.1 B 62 Nanjing, Jiangsu Retail

Robert Bass

$4 B 63 Fort Worth, TX oil, investments

Dirk Ziff

$4 B 46 New York, NY hedge funds

Robert Ziff

$4 B 44 New York, NY hedge funds

Daniel Ziff

$4 B 39 New York, NY hedge funds

Charles Johnson

$4 B 78 San Mateo, CA Franklin Resources

Marion MacMillan Pictet

$3.8 B 78 Hamilton Cargill Inc.

Whitney MacMillan

$3.8 B 82 Minneapolis, MN Cargill Inc.

Cargill MacMillan

$3.8 B 83 Indian Springs, CA Cargill Inc.

Pauline MacMillan Keinath

$3.8 B 77 St. Louis, MO Cargill Inc.

Charles Schwab

$3.7 B 73 Atherton, CA discount stock brokerage

Rupert Johnson

$3.7 B 69 San Mateo, CA Franklin Resources

Ray Dolby

$3.6 B 78 San Francisco, CA Dolby Laboratories

Thomas Frist & family

$3.6 B 72 Nashville, TN HCA Healthcare

Victor Fung & family

$3.55 B 65 Hong Kong Retail

Leonard Stern

$3.5 B 73 New York, NY real estate

Gordon Moore

$3.5 B 82 Woodside, CA Intel

Henry Kravis

$3.4 B 67 New York, NY leveraged buyouts

William Koch

$3.4 B 70 Palm Beach, FL oil, investments

Henry Ross Perot Sr

$3.4 B 80 Dallas, TX computer services, real estate

Haim Saban

$3.4 B 66 Beverly Hills, CA television

John Sall

$3.4 B 62 Cary, NC SAS Institute

John Sobrato & family

$3.3 B 71 Atherton, CA real estate

John Arnold

$3.3 B 37 Houston, TX hedge funds

George Lucas

$3.25 B 66 Marin County, CA Star Wars

Ann Walton Kroenke

$3.2 B 62 Columbia, MO Walmart

Daniel Och

$3.2 B 50 New York, NY hedge funds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following people would like to thank the tea party and the republicans for not raising their taxes. The middle class desperately needs to keep up the fight on behalf of the wealthy as there is no nobler cause. Every yacht helps but more corporate jets are still badly needed.

Some of those, particularly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have come out publicly in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I suspect it's more the nouveau riche who are most against raising the nominal rate on the top income brackets. Conservatives in the middle class seem to take an idealogical position against eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, even if those taxes would help balance the budget and not directly affect those in the middle class.

Edited by barracuda
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those, particularly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have come out publicly in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I suspect it's more the nouveau riche who are most against raising the nominal rate on the top income brackets. Conservatives in the middle class seem to take an idealogical position against eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, even if those taxes would help balance the budget and not directly affect those in the middle class.

I'll continue the derailment of this thread this once:

I don't think the taxation rate should be changed MUCH, however, some of the loopholes that are used should be limited or closed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those, particularly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have come out publicly in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I suspect it's more the nouveau riche who are most against raising the nominal rate on the top income brackets. Conservatives in the middle class seem to take an idealogical position against eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, even if those taxes would help balance the budget and not directly affect those in the middle class.

There is a place on your tax return that you can give extra money to the government. It can be voluntary. If they want to give more Buffett and Gates are more than welcome to do so. Nothing is holding them back except the fact that they dont really want to give more.

I don't think the billionaires are the ones that this harms the most. Its the families making $100-250K that are fundamentally against the increase....They fall squarely into the increase and they see the money being literally wasted....most of the families are still heavily in debt from school and home buying and are not financially sound on their retirement yet either. They are wise enough to know that the government is not going to provide for them in the future so they are making smart decisions now to prepare for the future.

Also, you cant balance the budget by increasing taxes on the wealthy alone anyways, you would still need exceptionally deep cuts....cuts that democrats are not willing to make. It is not just the republicans and the tea party who are unwilling to give. The democrats are equally as stubborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one answer to the current problem we have. It is to cut spending. We can not spend our way out of the problem, and the growth in population is not keeping pace with the growth of the deficit. The servicing of the interest on the debt alone is going to become unmanageable if we continue on course. I agree that you start with the silly stuff, but there is no political will to even do that. We simply need to cut across the boards possibly to pre-2007 levels. If you do that, nobody is getting special treatment or the appearance of favoritism. If the Dems dont want massive cuts in SS and medicaid then they need to pass a balanced budget amendment and then find the cuts to other areas to get there. The military is over funded, the right needs to recognize that and reduce it.

We have a spending problem. There is zero political will on the left to stop spending. The left wants the government to spend more because the politicians on the left want to get re-elected.

The downgrade was political, but it was done for a good reason. The left has nothing to gain by getting their financial affairs in order. They only lose voters as they cut services and spending. The right has everything to gain by getting the financial affairs in order....they gain voters by cutting spending. The divide between the two is growing as it becomes not the haves vs the have nots, but rather it is the people who are willing to work vs those who are not. The expectations that a high school diploma will get you a $25 an hour job somewhere is unreasonable now. Our labor market is now competing globally....Our workers need to realize that the days of just going to work in a factory for a good middle class life are gone. China is willing to do that work for far less than our workers. We need a new model going forward, and continuing to take from those who are still prospering to give to those who are not is not going to create the model of success we will need for the future. The entitlements and handouts are going to stifle the innovation needed for us to revive our society.

Budget amendment... As in the Constitution? Interesting... Some time ago I read an article saying that most economists agree that deficit spending up to a certain percentage was optimal. I'll see if I can find it now.

However, if we're going to amend the Constitution to include a balanced federal budget amendment, perhaps it would be a good time to repeal the 14th amendment (or the relevant clauses therein) and replace it with an amendment clarifying birthright citizenship and/or requirements for citizenship? What do y'all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a place on your tax return that you can give extra money to the government. It can be voluntary. If they want to give more Buffett and Gates are more than welcome to do so. Nothing is holding them back except the fact that they dont really want to give more.

I don't think the billionaires are the ones that this harms the most. Its the families making $100-250K that are fundamentally against the increase....They fall squarely into the increase and they see the money being literally wasted....most of the families are still heavily in debt from school and home buying and are not financially sound on their retirement yet either. They are wise enough to know that the government is not going to provide for them in the future so they are making smart decisions now to prepare for the future.

Obama proposed restoring only the top two income tax brackets for families making more than $250K. So I still suspect most of their opposition to the tax increase is on idealogical grounds, or they just don't understand the proposal.

Also, you cant balance the budget by increasing taxes on the wealthy alone anyways, you would still need exceptionally deep cuts....cuts that democrats are not willing to make. It is not just the republicans and the tea party who are unwilling to give. The democrats are equally as stubborn.

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of worthy causes in the world. Defending billionaires is NOT one of them. Shame on republican sheep - they are the devil's monkey wrench.

Edited by Mister X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of worthy causes in the world. Defending billionaires is NOT one of them. Shame on republican sheep - they are the devil's monkey wrench.

Spoken like a true class warfare proponent. Jealous much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like a true class warfare proponent. Jealous much?

Spoken like a true Fox News monkey wrench.

At last I have been exposed. I'm not a billionaire. And yes, I am very jealous of billionaires, I admit it. I'm not a billionaire and I wish I was one. Then maybe I wouldn't mind republicans and teabaggers fighting in my behalf in place of lesser causes such as feeding the hungry, making education affordable or creating jobs for the middle class.

I can understand a billionaire voting teabagger, but anyone who is not a billionaire who spends so much time and energy fighting so hard to help billionaires make more billions and has no problems cutting medical aid to elderly sick people is a sucker, a sadist or a sheep. Say Baah!

I now understand your point. If one doesn't make it their life's calling to defend billionaires - they must be jealous. Teabaggers should run with that message. I think it sums up their mission very nicely.

Teabaggers are Americas' own junior Al Qaida in waiting.

Edited by Mister X
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following people would like to thank the tea party and the republicans for not raising their taxes. The middle class desperately needs to keep up the fight on behalf of the wealthy as there is no nobler cause. Every yacht helps but more corporate jets are still badly needed.

Bill Gates $54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft

Warren Buffett $45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway

major snippage of irrelevant twaddle

What's your point? Most of the folks you listed own lots of stock or own valuable businesses. They aren't taxed on their billions, because the US doesn't tax wealth, but taxes income. Warren Buffet takes a salary of $100,000 per year from Berkshire Hathaway because he has other means on which to live. Bill Gates was paid $300,000 as CEO of MSFT. Since their income was low, they paid low taxes. Presumably, they paid capital gains taxes on the stock they sold to generate cash. The way the tax laws work in the US, if you have a giant pile of cash, say a billion dollars in 100's, you pay no income tax. That makes your list irrelevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not clear to anybody at this point, the S&P rating had little to do with the market volatility this week.. The S&P rating's effect on the stock market was given a lot of hype by the media, which continually proves itself poorly analytical in such matters.

S&P threatened in April that it was looking at a downgrade. In early July, they named their number for government cuts: $4 Trillion. The Government missed that mark. S&P downgraded. Ummm...no surprise. The largest holders of US debt are holding and buying. What's the emergency over the S&P rating?

Here's why we must experience a market week like this....

-We were whores to the real estate market. We had a bubble. Bubbles, in economic cycles, take several years to unfold. We're still unfolding...

-The mess in Europe continues to unfold. It will continue to unfold. The stock market is going to absorb that unfolding. It will for some time. The EU will prevail. They have the ability to deal with their problems - riots and all.

Do not confuse this week's volatility with sovereign debt problems. The volatility is due to real economic conditions. Those conditions still exist. Take advantage of it. Get over it. Commit sepuku. Commit to dollar cost averaging. Do whatever you want to.

Regarding all the other arguments above, we should be diligent for long-tern responsibility. That responsibiility is to the fiscal plite of our Government. That responsibility is to the struggling middle class and the poor in our Nation. For some of us, these considerations should be a spiritual. For some of us, these considerations should be a matter of supporting the base of our economy. May we be smart enough to hold these premises in balance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not clear to anybody at this point, the S&P rating had little to do with the market volatility this week.. The S&P rating's effect on the stock market was given a lot of hype by the media, which continually proves itself poorly analytical in such matters.

S&P threatened in April that it was looking at a downgrade. In early July, they named their number for government cuts: $4 Trillion. The Government missed that mark. S&P downgraded. Ummm...no surprise. The largest holders of US debt are holding and buying. What's the emergency over the S&P rating?

Here's why we must experience a market week like this....

-We were whores to the real estate market. We had a bubble. Bubbles, in economic cycles, take several years to unfold. We're still unfolding...

-The mess in Europe continues to unfold. It will continue to unfold. The stock market is going to absorb that unfolding. It will for some time. The EU will prevail. They have the ability to deal with their problems - riots and all.

Do not confuse this week's volatility with sovereign debt problems. The volatility is due to real economic conditions. Those conditions still exist. Take advantage of it. Get over it. Commit sepuku. Commit to dollar cost averaging. Do whatever you want to.

I kind of figured that the longer-term effect of the S&P downgrade had already been priced-in, at least for the most part. But I do think that it probably triggered a lot of trades based in behavioral finance models. 'If I think that other traders are going to be spooked (rightly or wrongly), then I will try to act spooked a few moments before they are to stay ahead of the curve, and then jump back in when the moment seems right.' If I think that other traders are adopting my same strategy, then that effect is subject to a multiplier and a great deal of volatility.

But essentially, you're right. The story is political in nature, not economic.

Regarding all the other arguments above, we should be diligent for long-tern responsibility. That responsibiility is to the fiscal plite of our Government. That responsibility is to the struggling middle class and the poor in our Nation. For some of us, these considerations should be a spiritual. For some of us, these considerations should be a matter of supporting the base of our economy. May we be smart enough to hold these premises in balance.

IMHO, there should not be any further extension of unemployment benefits without attaching those benefits to a jobs program. If you want unemployment, you have to go and help rebuild a city park or a freeway or something.

And as for redistribution of wealth in the form of transfer payments, I think that such things should be a matter of tax-deductible charity. And individuals should decide their priorities, whether the poor or the elderly or disabled veterans, etc., are most deserving. Or perhaps it's artists...or billionaires. Whatever. It's not my money to take, and the fact is that money finds a way to flow within the modern global economy, regardless of what anybody does with it.

You bring up the spiritual component of "responsibility". I don't think that a Christian god that sets an example of allowing individuals their free will and the opportunity to sin would much favor coercive mechanisms that deprive an individual of the opportunity to freely demonstrate righteous behavior. It seems inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not clear to anybody at this point, the S&P rating had little to do with the market volatility this week.. The S&P rating's effect on the stock market was given a lot of hype by the media, which continually proves itself poorly analytical in such matters.

S&P threatened in April that it was looking at a downgrade. In early July, they named their number for government cuts: $4 Trillion. The Government missed that mark. S&P downgraded. Ummm...no surprise. The largest holders of US debt are holding and buying. What's the emergency over the S&P rating?

Here's why we must experience a market week like this....

-We were whores to the real estate market. We had a bubble. Bubbles, in economic cycles, take several years to unfold. We're still unfolding...

-The mess in Europe continues to unfold. It will continue to unfold. The stock market is going to absorb that unfolding. It will for some time. The EU will prevail. They have the ability to deal with their problems - riots and all.

Do not confuse this week's volatility with sovereign debt problems. The volatility is due to real economic conditions. Those conditions still exist. Take advantage of it. Get over it. Commit sepuku. Commit to dollar cost averaging. Do whatever you want to.

Regarding all the other arguments above, we should be diligent for long-tern responsibility. That responsibiility is to the fiscal plite of our Government. That responsibility is to the struggling middle class and the poor in our Nation. For some of us, these considerations should be a spiritual. For some of us, these considerations should be a matter of supporting the base of our economy. May we be smart enough to hold these premises in balance.

You lost me at spiritual... Spirituality has nothing to do with any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...