I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Geez it was OK when it was Bernie's plan ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=FYAClOv3px4

Let’s talk about $1000 invested vs $1000 spent. If I invest, the $ goes against the Assets of a Company somewhere. The company I work for invests bigly in equipment and technology so they borrow money against invested assets to make that investment and pay some capital cost call it 5% so now my $1000 is doing the work of $1050. Our company pays all expenses and expects an investment to pay for itself in one year so the $1000 probably supported an employee for 100 hours (my portion of the total capital investment) at some wage; even $15/hr would mean someone else earned $1500 from y $1500. Any profit made on that asset is taxed and what is left is split up between the corporation and the investor (me) I earn since Trump took office 25% so my investment of $1000 is worth $1250 on paper, I pay 20% tax on 250 capital gain and the Government gets $50 and I net $200. So my $1000 investment “parked in the market” nets me $200, it nets the government at least $50, it nets some employee $1500, it nets a finance company $50 (which is also taxed at some level), the government confiscates (taxes) another 10% from the employee or $150, and whatever goods are produced are sold and intangibly improve someone’s life. So yes $1000 spent isn’t the same as $1000 parked in the market. Bank $50, Employee $1500, government $200+, Investor $200 Total $1950 from $1000 just sitting there doing nothing..

I said that it’s good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think I’m wrong, and that it’s better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I's called restructuring the system to fit available revenue. Downsizing is one form of successful restructuring. Over extending any system beyond actual resources is a sure way to make that system, as you put it, "suffer"--even collapse. And constantly borrowing, without repaying on the principal, getting further and further in debt, will also cause a system to "suffer"--even to collapse. And creating a Ponzi scheme system wherein it pays returns to its investors (the "people" in a government system) from new capital (fiat money in a Ponzi government system) paid to the operators (government bureaucracy and its special interests and lobbyists who support it) by new investors (new generations, the children of the "people" in a government system), rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources (reasonable, affordable, taxes to support a rigorously defined, limited, and consistently responsible, well structured system of government), will eventually, as all Ponzi schemes do, collapse.

As you say, it doesn't require a degree in economics to understand that.

I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.

They are a staple but don't last too long after harvest. I have been making a dish for special occasions for many years. Google potatoes w leeks and gruyere for a dish that will impress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm certain most liberals believe that. It's absurd.

I don't know anyone that thinks that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing created an artificial bubble of bank reserves for which the Fed paid a secured higher interest to the banks than the banks could get from less secure loans to the private sector at the lower interest dictated by the Federal Reserve's low benchmark interest rates.

That coupled with the economic downturn after 2008 which lowered the demand for loans, made it more profitable for the banks to lend less to the private sector and depend more on the Fed interest payments to them on the money it was holding for them, and so was not being released at normal volume into the market in the forms of loans to the private sector.

This intrusion by the Fed Reserve distorted the normal relationship of bank deposits to loans. It created a huge bubble of artificial bank reserves, not related to market activity, which can create massive inflation when that reserve is released into the market. The economy has recovered since then and the demand for loans is rising, and expected to rise more if the public confidence in the economy remains. There may be a tricky balance for the banks in taking on a great amount of public deposits to add to their reserve bubble which could infuse too much money into the economy and cause the feared inflation. In any event, the market will have to correct for the ill conceived bubble created by massive quantitative easing. Let's hope it doesn't provoke another crash.

Eventually, when things return to normal, if they do, then private deposits to banks will again create the reserve they need to make loans.

Then why do most liberals say that trickle down doesn’t help the economy?

Spence, if the wealthy don’t burn their money or bury it, then how do they use it in a way that isn’t beneficial to the economy? If they save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, or pay taxes with it, don’t all of those things help the economy? Please explain, I’m all ears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics

so a 1000 invested is returning 950 dollars ???

so are you going to cover what spending 1000 does?

love you Wayne, but this is just....good grief...

"your the reason they stay rich"

Oh, I am the reason that rich people are rich! Jeez, whatever magic wand I have that makes people wealthy, I should get around to using it on myself one of these days instead of living paycheck to paycheck. So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are only rich because of Republicans, not because of anything they did. What an astute observation.

"you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country"

Well, I live in cT, where liberals have ruled for 40 years. Our cities are FAR worse now than 40 years ago. So if you want to tell me that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives, you need to support that. The one study done on the subject, actually shows that conservatives are more charitable. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

"According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. "

And that's because of simple math. not because of theft. The wealthy have more money to invest than the rest of us. So when the economy grows, they will always benefit more than the rest of us. Out of curiosity, how would you stop this? Pass a law saying that people are no longer allowed to work or invest once their net worth hits some maximum? Is that something that you do in a free country?

"buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them"

I never said anything that stupid. But 90% of us can be middle class if we work hard and make good decisions, and most importantly, if we have good parents. Most of us can learn a trade, or graduate from a public university with a degree in nursing, teaching, accounting, physical therapy, etc...You don't have to be rich or have a 200 IQ to pull those things off. True or false?

"the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt."

Part of that is that we want to live way beyond our means. How many flat screen TVs, smart phones, and all that other crap, must one have?

Your fixation on the wealth is very telling, and very telling. You claim that the rest of us can only wait for their scraps. That's demonstrably false, pure liberal bullsh*t. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there's a million less for the rest of us. When she gets richer, that doe NOT make my life or your life any harder. Don't you see that? How can you not see that?

All of liberalism is now based on divisiveness - based on race, gender, economic class. Liberals always blame someone else for their problems, rather then ever taking responsibility.

Chances are, if you want to know the cause of your problems, look in the mirror.

Does the top 1% eat 35% of the food and own 35% of the homes, cars, clothes, toys, guns, televisions, computers, etc. in this country? What is meant by owning more wealth?

Does your "all debt" include the debt government owes? latest 2017 stats say that "Total Government And Personal Debt In The U.S. Has Hit 41 Trillion Dollars ($329,961.34 Per Household)." (https://thedailycoin.org/2017/07/27/...per-household/ And that does not include corporate debt.

So if the federal government debt is around $20 trillion, and the State and municipal debts are around 5 trillion, that leaves personal debt to be about $16 trillion. Which is well less than half the total debt owed in this country. Most of the debt is owed by government, supposedly borrowed on our behalf. And to whom is the government debt owed? A great deal of it is owed to the top 1%. And a lot of that money was borrowed from the top 1% by Democrat politicians--probably more than was borrowed by Republicans. Not that it matters who borrowed it, but gives a lie to your who supports the top 1%.

So the government has handed you a personal bill of $329,961.34. Thanks to both parties but mostly to the Democrats. Can you pay that? Of course not. So who is going to pay for it? Apparently, no one will. Not if the government keeps borrowing from the top 1% to pay for only the interest on the debt. Your children will be left the tab. So they will need a booming economy to provide the jobs and wealth that can chip away at that debt. I guess that's why some politicians, and economists think that structuring tax policies in favor of business growth is more important than merely lowering personal tax rates.

His opinion, that the wealthy get first dibs at the trough and the rest of us have to get by on the scraps, is liberal economics in one sentence. It is demonstrably false, and far beyond absurd. But it's always easier to blame the boogeyman for our lot in life, than it is to take responsibility for our own lot in life. Liberalism always looks to blame someone else, preferably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit.

One thing I'm grateful for this year is that my parents never allow me to grow up miserable like Jim and be filled with the type of hate he demonstrates here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like Trump's tax plan is already working, by getting rich folks to kick in their fair share :hee:

I told you guys... property taxes are going to get you in the ass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the nerve of someone owning a second house

Just saying if you support this tax bill or see it in a positive light endorse the estate tax repeal or changes in pass thru accounts or provision clearly attacking blue states . Amongst other things .. then yes the rich love you and say thanks

it was this part

"wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed "


between you and GOT hoping America somehow survives Trump...you guys might be better off in Canada with Spence

Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So lower the property taxes in Connecticut.

When the fed gubment cuts back on money to the states and the states cut back on funding to towns, the towns will play the Shell game and use the tax apraisor to magically tell you that your 300k house is now worth 400k. Local governments will also look to any other way to suck you dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's for the children...