Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-11-2010, 06:52 PM   #31
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
higher net tax burden, increased fees wherever they can stick it to you, higher health care costs, dollar declining in value, flat wages, inflation, higher interest rates, have you seen the price of oil ?

not going to be pretty...hey...maybe we need more stimulus?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2010, 07:34 PM   #32
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
We just know what parts the current administration will drool over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Thats fine, but the suggests are being attacked by BOTH sides, which leads me to believe it is getting closer to some small solutions!
RIRockhound, it's like I said in my initial post:
"I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."

Some are incapable of being objective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
im looking at the proposal as a whole. If they're reducing my tax rate by 10%, thats a lot more than my mortgage deduction.
The proposal also contains big cuts in spending.
Jim, I'm right there with you. As a business owner, I could get hit pretty hard depending on some of the deductions that will be lost. The proposals are far from perfect and then they'll get screwed with further as politicians from both sides mess with them.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 05:50 AM   #33
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
no mention of Obamacare in this report? probably won't have any effect on government spending in the future

hey, this will make JD happy in the next couple of years when his dollar is worth zip thanks to Bernanke and prices are soaring...he can refer back to this for talking points

blame it on the tea party and SP...

Will Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Cause Hyper-Inflation? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

we need more GREEN JOBS!!!!!


ABC7 FREMONT, Calif. (KGO) -- New competition from China is causing layoffs at Fremont's Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a stimulus loan last year to build a new factory.


Solyndra was the epitome of what the government envisioned to be our green tech future.

President Obama, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, toured the solar panel production line. Confidence was so high that Solyndra got a $535 million stimulus program loan to build a new factory along I-880 in Fremont.


Related Content
Story: Obama touts alternative energy at plant in Fremont

Now there is word it will shut down its older plant down the street -- 40 employees will be laid off and 150 contract workers won't be renewed. The reason is price competition from lower cost Chinese solar panel makers, and Solyndra says it needs to cut its expenses so it can drop its prices.

"Today we would be somewhere in a $3 to $4 per watt basis. We need to be at a $2 per watt basis all-in, which is fully installed on the roof with panels and mounts on the rooftop," Solyndra spokesperson David Miller said.

Suddenly, the future isn't as bright as it was a year ago and taxpayer money is on the line.

Solyndra's shiny new plant cost $733 million -- $535 million came from federal funds. Only $198 million is for private financing, so the government's stake is 73 percent.

According to a filing by Solyndra with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if it were to default on the $535 million loan, the Dept. of Energy would end up owning that brand new fabrication plant as well as the land underneath.

Public records show that about $402 million of the loan proceeds have been dispersed. The lion's share, $262 million went to the contractor and smaller amounts to a design firm, a developer and to the county for taxes. So a lot of public money is riding on Solyndra to succeed.

"It's not going to be worth anything if you have to foreclose. If you want to loan me money on my house, you can do that. If I don't pay, you can take the house back. And if there's equity in the property, you resell it and you won't lose a penny. But with a property like this, it'll be vacant for who knows how long?" real estate attorney Ron Rossi said

Last edited by scottw; 11-13-2010 at 04:39 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 08:15 AM   #34
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
RIRockhound, it's like I said in my initial post: "I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."Some are incapable of being objective.
Of course. But I'll repeat. criticism from both sides leads me to put more credence in this.

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 10:18 AM   #35
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Of course. But I'll repeat. criticism from both sides leads me to put more credence in this.
I completely agree and it's part of what I found so interesting. Like stated above, if both sides have issues with it, then the recommendations are probably on the right track.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 10:33 AM   #36
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Some are incapable of being objective.

some people, those people, these people, you people....

some people are becoming quite snobby...

I'm offended for Jimmy and Buckman having their objectivity questioned by people like JD.....
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 10:51 AM   #37
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
"I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."

Some are incapable of being objective.

.
Johnny, I'm 100% objective.

In my objective view, Obama has taken deficit spending to levels NEVER seen before in this country (in terms of absolute dollars). You cannot deny that, I'm not making that up because I'm secretly a racist and hate Obama (I do hate him, but not because of his race). If I bring up the possible ramifications of this level of spending, in your opinion, I'm not being objective?

As for whether or not he's a socialist? Obviously, Obama is not a totalitarian communist like Stalin. But I think it's absolutely fair to compare him to the western european socialists. Do you deny that Obama's view of what America should be, is similar to the western european socialist nations? If you do deny that, please tell me what the difference is? It's clear to me that Obama favors a federal government that looks like a western european (i.e., socialist) model. I don't know WHY he favors that, since we are currently witnessing what that leads to, but clearly that's his ideal.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that calling Obama a socialist, or worrying about debt, is what conservatives do to distract attention away frrom valid issues. In my opinion, those are valid issues.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 10:56 AM   #38
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
this is pretty funny...


Tales of 57 States: The Deficit Wizards Speak
Lee Cary

Now it came to pass that while His Obamaness was touring the Far East with his entourage of many man and maidservants, including those who attended him from among the corpse {not a typo}of the White Palace Town Criers, a nearly important event happened back in the 57 States.


The insignificant thing came to pass when those who had been appointed by the ruling class to be Deficit Wizards, and asked to apply their knowledge of coin, commerce and Congress to the Realm's deficit problem, finally spoke to the serfs and peasants.


Earlier, they had been summoned to the capital because four of every ten sheep that the ruling class sacrificed each year to the gods of assorted causes were borrowed from those in faraway lands, including the Land of the Panda, and Sushiland. As this borrowing went on year-after-year, even small children, just learning to speak, were heard to say, "This debt is unsustainable!" A mouthful for a small one who had just mastered the word "potty." Even toddlers knew the debt would be part of their inheritance. Yet, the spending continued.


While His Obamaness was, conveniently for Hisownself, absent the Realm, the Deficit Wizards, led by Alan "The Entertainer" Simpson (no kin to a prominent clan called The Simpsons) and Erskine "The Academic" Bowles, delivered their report to those among the Town Criers who had not been invited to attend to His Obamaness on his journey to the Far East.


Alan the Entertainer, a tall yellow-tusked elder bull of the Elephant Clan, had once been a member of the Senate representing the land where the buffalo roamed. Or used to, anyway. He was known for his colorful faux frank language. For example, he said that the actions the Deficit Wizards were recommending were like "cuddling a bear cub in the presence of the she bear," or, like "talking a bull elk out its winter coat," or, like "smearing peanut butter on your land, sticking it into a wolverine den, and tweaking the creature's nose." Alan the Entertainer had an endless supply of witticisms he learned as a young man while on probation for shooting mailboxes.


Erskine the Academic had once been a principle aide to a former Donkey Clan POTUS called Slick Willy because of the duplicitous lucidity and amorous dexterity of his tongue, and other appendages. The Academic, who played the straight man to The Entertainer, heralded from an academy of moderately higher learning in the state adjoining South Carolina to the north.


The Deficit Wizards said that, to reduce the Realm's debt, the people should pay more taxes to the regime and receive fewer gifts. All these things, the Wizards said, would erase most, but not all, of the deficit incurred by the His Obamaness' regime during his reign as POTUS.


Upon hearing the Wizards speak, the people of the Realm looked at each other and, in the spirit of Alan the Entertainer, said, "I guess these clowns think this is our first rodeo." Others asked, "So do we look like turnips?" And, a few even said, "These two give real wizards a bad name!"


So it was that the wisdom offered by the Deficit Wizards was not well-received by the people of Realm.

Wizard Alan the Entertainer was heard to say, "I feel a little like the girl who got all dressed up and went to the prom alone, and, when the music started playin', no one would dance with her except the nerdy guy." Eyes glanced toward The Academic to see if he had taken offense.


Wizard Erskine the Academic said, "I have a faculty meeting to attend. Keep me posted."


Alan responded, "He's goin' home with more than tar on his heel." And smiled, like a twelve-point white tail buck that caught a glimpse of the sun reflecting off a distant scope concealed by a ghillie suit, and thought ‘Shoulda stayed home on the range'."
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:11 PM   #39
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
It seems to me that you're suggesting that calling Obama a socialist, or worrying about debt, is what conservatives do to distract attention away frrom valid issues. In my opinion, those are valid issues.
If that is how it seems to you, then you've completely missed the point of my initial comment, while also confirming that point in the process. I'm suggesting that objective, constructive discussion on the bipartisan Debt Commission's proposals is impossible because some of those in here are blinded by their disdain for Democrats and Obama.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:26 PM   #40
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Some are incapable of being objective.

Sorry JD, I never liked or trusted a Bull Sh#tter. You understand right?
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:45 PM   #41
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
I'm suggesting that objective, constructive discussion on the bipartisan Debt Commission's proposals is impossible because some of those in here are blinded by their disdain for Democrats and Obama.
I thought it was because they were mostly fishermen..huh?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:54 PM   #42
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,630
Johnny, I still maintain that talking about controlling federal spending, is not necessarily a distraction to the conversation you would like to have.

I liked a lot of the commission's ideas. I'd just like to see deeper cuts before we talk about raising tax rates. Since Obama has been in the oval office, the number of federal employees making > $150,000 has DOUBLED. That is so insane as to defy description.

Social security, medicare, medicaid have to be cut. There is no earthly reason why at least a portion of social security can't be privatized. Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. I cannot see the liberal argument against this, other than it came out of Bush's mouth, and therefore deranged liberals must oppose it...

Entitlement programs have to be cut. No one, and I mean NO ONE who is healthy, should just get a welfare or unemployment check in the mail. Have 'em pick up garbage at playgrounds, paint walls in city schools, have them dig up Mt McKinley and move it three inches to the right for all I care...but if people are physically able to work, and they want my tax dollars for welfare, then they can put down the beer and get off the goddamn couch.

At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

After all those cuts are made, if we're still in debt, then raise taxes...
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:06 PM   #43
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;810458] Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:15 PM   #44
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;810465]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar
I'm pretty sure that the head of SEIU suggested recently that the govt. begin to use ss reciepts to purchase stocks...talk about picking winners and losers...

I forgot that Andy Stern was on the debt commission, another reason that it's a joke...


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/...-stock-market/
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:24 PM   #45
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,630
[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;810465]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar
OK, you absolutely have a point there. So I'll modify my suggestion and say you spread the investments into something even broader than the S&P 500. But my point is (and I htink it has a lot of validity) that is we want to pretend that we care about the viability of social security, we need to get a decent return on the money before it's spent on benefits.

There will be more retirees who are living longer, and fewer workers paying taxes into the plan. The math just doesn't work unless you're generating some kind of return.

Finally, if the money was put into the S&P, and those stocks went up, almost every American benefits from that, because most of us have some stake in the market.

Will some benefit more than others? Absolutely. Does that mean it's better to let the whole plan implode, rather than let a lot of people do OK and a few get rich?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:37 PM   #46
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
please distinguish between partial privatization of social security (which is what Jim suggests) particulary considering most of us will never see a penny of our ss "investment" and to continue the farce of doling out huge sums each year cloaked as retirement investment(lock box) but in actuality just another tax and government transfer of wealth....and the government actually taking ss money and buying into the stock market which this union thug(Stern) seems to favor probably realizing the depth of the disaster that unfunded union pensions pose...there's a huge difference...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com