STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:55:40 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

The fact of the matter is that I didn't vote for
W.

I find this hard to believe, but I guess that's it -- you've answered
it.

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:37:32 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote:



JT's vision of democracy and free debate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504466,00.html

Ya know if Stevie, TK, or anyone from center to right said the kind of
**** about silencing debate and the other stuff that comes out of JT
they'd be getting killed here as fascist totalitarian hate filled
scumbags. They've all been trashed for positions much less offensive
and bigotted than JT takes regularly.
Just sayin'

So has the Revenge started?

On Mar 4, 5:28*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:55:40 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
Not about admitting anything. *Paul's question is ridiculous on it's
face, in that he believes he can judge any/everything about me based
on my voting record.

Some answers to the question "who'd you vote for" don't give really
clear answers. *If someone voted for Reagan it could mean a lot of
things. Ditto Clinton. Even voting for GWBush *once.* *

But if someone voted for GWB twice it's clear they're an idiot on
politics (unless they are one of the few mega-rich who benefitted from
that guy). *It's a simple test. That's why it's interesting. *That's
why you avoid it.

JT, c'mon now, GWB defeated the "best" the democrats could muster,
twice, and you think everyone who voted for him is an idiot?
Really??? Just 'cause they don't agree with your brand of politics
doesn't render them idiots. Consider this, much like many voted for
Obama 'cause they couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain, many
folks voted for GWB 'cause they couldn't bring themselves to vote for
Gore or Kerry. Sometimes it's about voting against the guy you want
less rather than voting for the guy you want more.

On Mar 4, 3:21*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:18*pm, "Paul G." wrote:





On Mar 4, 7:42*am, Scott wrote:

On Mar 3, 11:48*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 3, 7:50*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,

*Scott wrote:
As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

* *There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

*President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

* *I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). *To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid.. *As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. *People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. *It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

* *It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

* *And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately).

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard,

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?

Dumbass -

You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's say for the sake of the discussion that you're right in your
opening sentence. *Why, then, would you (and others) blame Bush for
the ills of today (which had their seed planted over 25 years ago) but
then assume that even though we've seen an additional 20% loss in the
value of the Dow since the inauguration of Obama, that Obama is not to
blame for some of that? *

Clinton inherited a record budget deficit and 8 years later left a
record surplus.
Bush inherited a record budget surplus and 8 years later left a record
deficit.
Obama inherited a a record deficit and a wrecked economy, and he's
only been on the job for a few weeks. Any reasonable person can see
that the latest downturn in the market is just a continuation of what
was happening after 8 years of irresponsible policies under Bush.

You yourself say that only 20% of the downturn in the Dow occurred
since Obama took office. I just checked your math. The Dow peaked at
14164 and at the moment is at 6900, a loss of 7264. When Obama took
office it was 7949, so it's lost about 1049. *1049 / 7264 works out to
14.4%. *So you exaggerated when you claimed it was 20%, it is in fact
less than 15%.

When Clinton took office in January of 1993 the Dow Jones Industrial
Average was 3,253. When he left office in January of 2001 it was at
10,587.
When Bush took office, it was 10,587 and when he left office it was
7,949. *Check my statistics. There is no special imaginary Kuntitch
Dow, it's all historical data. Do the math, moron.

Dumbass -

You're making the same mistake that Kunich and Scott are.

The markets don't give a **** about what the government is doing. The
stock of Apple or General Motors reacts to how those companies
themselves are performing. Not Congress, the Supreme Court or the
President.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Henry,

Sorry, but the market does in fact care about how the future will be
shaped by monetary policy, spending, etc... You may not want to
believe that, since to do so would require you to accept that much of
the market's recent downturn is in some part driven by concerns over
President Obama's policies. You can state that the market only cares
about performance, but to deny the impact of govt. policy is as if to
say that govt policy has no impact on the performance of thecompanies
which make up the market. If there's no impact, then why the hell
would we be spending roughly two trillion $$$ trying to stabilize the
market?

"Scott" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but the market does in fact care about how the future will be
shaped by monetary policy, spending, etc... You may not want to
believe that, since to do so would require you to accept that much of
the market's recent downturn is in some part driven by concerns over
President Obama's policies. You can state that the market only cares
about performance, but to deny the impact of govt. policy is as if to
say that govt policy has no impact on the performance of thecompanies
which make up the market. If there's no impact, then why the hell
would we be spending roughly two trillion $$$ trying to stabilize the
market?

Scott, you're arguing with an inheritance baby. He believes because he was
given everything he must be smart.

On Mar 4, 4:52*pm, Scott wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:21*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:





On Mar 4, 12:18*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:42*am, Scott wrote:

On Mar 3, 11:48*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 3, 7:50*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,

*Scott wrote:
As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

* *There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

*President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

* *I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). *To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. *As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. *People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. *It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

* *It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

* *And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately).

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard,

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?

Dumbass -

You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's say for the sake of the discussion that you're right in your
opening sentence. *Why, then, would you (and others) blame Bush for
the ills of today (which had their seed planted over 25 years ago) but
then assume that even though we've seen an additional 20% loss in the
value of the Dow since the inauguration of Obama, that Obama is not to
blame for some of that? *

Clinton inherited a record budget deficit and 8 years later left a
record surplus.
Bush inherited a record budget surplus and 8 years later left a record
deficit.
Obama inherited a a record deficit and a wrecked economy, and he's
only been on the job for a few weeks. Any reasonable person can see
that the latest downturn in the market is just a continuation of what
was happening after 8 years of irresponsible policies under Bush.

You yourself say that only 20% of the downturn in the Dow occurred
since Obama took office. I just checked your math. The Dow peaked at
14164 and at the moment is at 6900, a loss of 7264. When Obama took
office it was 7949, so it's lost about 1049. *1049 / 7264 works out to
14.4%. *So you exaggerated when you claimed it was 20%, it is in fact
less than 15%.

When Clinton took office in January of 1993 the Dow Jones Industrial
Average was 3,253. When he left office in January of 2001 it was at
10,587.
When Bush took office, it was 10,587 and when he left office it was
7,949. *Check my statistics. There is no special imaginary Kuntitch
Dow, it's all historical data. Do the math, moron.

Dumbass -

You're making the same mistake that Kunich and Scott are.

The markets don't give a **** about what the government is doing. The
stock of Apple or General Motors reacts to how those companies
themselves are performing. Not Congress, the Supreme Court or the
President.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Henry,

Sorry, but the market does in fact care about how the future will be
shaped by monetary policy, spending, etc... *You may not want to
believe that, since to do so would require you to accept that much of
the market's recent downturn is in some part driven by concerns over
President Obama's policies. *You can state that the market only cares
about performance, but to deny the impact of govt. policy is as if to
say that govt policy has no impact on the performance of thecompanies
which make up the market. *If there's no impact, then why the hell
would we be spending roughly two trillion $$$ trying to stabilize the
market?



Dumbass -


You don't even understand what the problem is.

They're not trying to stabilize the stock market.

They're trying to free up the financial system. Right now, it's semi-
frozen and it has a possibility of getting much worse.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mar 4, 5:15*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



Sorry, but the market does in fact care about how the future will be
shaped by monetary policy, spending, etc... *You may not want to
believe that, since to do so would require you to accept that much of
the market's recent downturn is in some part driven by concerns over
President Obama's policies. *You can state that the market only cares
about performance, but to deny the impact of govt. policy is as if to
say that govt policy has no impact on the performance of thecompanies
which make up the market. *If there's no impact, then why the hell
would we be spending roughly two trillion $$$ trying to stabilize the
market?

Scott, you're arguing with an inheritance baby. He believes because he was
given everything he must be smart.




Dumbass -


That's not the reason I'm smarter than you. There's a number of
reasons and that's not one of them. I'll list a few of them though.

1) I read a lot
2) I try to learn from what I read
3) I don't look at the world from the prism of: 1 political
party=good, the other political party=bad


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"K. Gringioni" wrote in message
...

That's not the reason I'm smarter than you. There's a number of
reasons and that's not one of them. I'll list a few of them though.

1) I read a lot
2) I try to learn from what I read
3) I don't look at the world from the prism of: 1 political
party=good, the other political party=bad

I'm rather surprised that you'd admit to reading. You're hardly the kind
that would learn anything from reading as is plainly shown by your comments
here.

By the way, if you don't understand my position on politics perhaps you
could either ask or simply pass.

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:23:38 -0800 (PST), "K. Gringioni"
wrote:


Dumbass -


You don't even understand what the problem is.

They're not trying to stabilize the stock market.

They're trying to free up the financial system. Right now, it's semi-
frozen and it has a possibility of getting much worse.

Yeah. And frankly I'd be a little worried is the stock market rallied
w/o some of the fundamental issues being worked out. It would be a
sign that leaders on Wall Street have found ways to scam more money
out of the government and the public.

I hope the market turns around. But I want it to happen because the
economy is turning around.

On Mar 3, 7:10 am, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:



On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:32 pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 12:40 pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:00 am, Bill C wrote:

When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this
without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages,
"trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you
folks.

Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+
members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? What would
happen in the meantime?
-Paul

How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages?
Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's
entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against).

Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost
another 15% in the market. Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but
doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. Sometimes nothing is
better.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your point?

That no one should take you seriously.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're not talking about President Bush here, so your reference to him
is useless. We're not even talking about ANY republican alternative
to President Obama. We're talking about the current president, the
"stimulus" bill and the state of the economy. You hate President
Bush, we all get that. But let's try to stay on point.

Here's something serious for you to consider. Check the level of the
market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the
day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the
day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three
miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the
day the spending bill was signed into law. Check the level the day
they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000
earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. The
pattern is pretty clear. When it looked like there may be some
serious debate on a STIMULUS bill the market was stable, or even a
little up. It's been on a significant spiral ever since it was clear
there was no stimulus but lots of spending. The markets have spoken:
Obama/Pelosi spending bill is NOT going to stimulate anything other
than big govt and big debt.

The stimulus is chicken feed. The markets are getting sucked into the
black hole where the banks used to be.