LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
bra_man69 said:
Maybe we all can try control the silver market like the hunt brothers tried in the early 80's:D
Click to expand...

What about a copper-based market that rewards all those hard-workin' landfill prospectors? And anyone keeping old mint pennies around?
 
Must be a Glibertarian thing...

4est_4est_Gump said:
See opening charts:
The net effect of governments setting zero interest rates, then borrowing wildly at those addictive levels, is the denial of a fair return on savings and investments for the people.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...cy_and_the_federal_reserve.html#ixzz25DMedOTo
Click to expand...

Low interest rates...BAD!

When consumers borrow money at low interest rates, it's a good thing...
When the government borrows money at low interest rates, it's a DERP DERP DERP DERP!
 
War on the Poor!

The United States economy currently uses about 2.3 trillion kilograms of carbon per year, comprising 1 trillion kg in its coal, 0.8 trillion kg in its oil, and 0.5 trillion kg in its natural gas. Taxing this at Frank’s recommended rate of $1.21 per kg would therefore raise $2.78 trillion, somewhat more than the $2.3 trillion that the federal government raises through the current tax system (assuming that the carbon tax did not crash the economy, which it probably would, but we’ll leave that aside for now).

But what would the effect on prices be? Currently, western bituminous low-sulfur coal has a cost of $0.01 per kg at the mine, or $0.03 delivered to most users. Coal is about 90 percent carbon by weight. The green tax would thus multiply the cost of coal by nearly a factor of 40. A thousand cubic feet of natural gas contains about 18 kg of carbon. Taxing its carbon at a rate of $1.21 per kg would thus increase the price of a thousand cubic feet of natural gas from its current level of $2.50 to about $24.30, a tenfold increase. A barrel of oil contains about 110 kg of carbon. The green tax would thus hike the price Americans pay for oil by $133 per barrel over the world price (i.e., to about $230 per barrel today). As coal and natural gas provide the energy to produce not only the bulk of the nation’s electric power, but also most of its steel, aluminum, fertilizer, pesticides, food, plastics, electronics, glass, and many other products, and as oil provides the fuel to transport them, the cost of all of these would soar as well.

So who ends up paying? Under America’s current tax system, the top 5 percent of income earners pay 59 percent of all federal income taxes, the next 45 percent pay 39 percent, and the bottom half pays next to nothing. But because basic commodities such as food, electricity, and fuel are bought in similar amounts per capita regardless of income (i.e., a working-class family living on $30,000 per year in Harlem uses about the same amount of electricity and food as the family of a money manager living on $30 million per year on Park Avenue; and rural Americans, of whatever class, spend much more on gasoline than either), the $2.78 trillion green tax would be spread nearly evenly on all Americans, not as a fixed “flat tax” percentage of income, but as a fixed cost regardless of income.

Divided evenly among 300 million Americans, the green tax works out to a burden of $9,270 imposed on every man, woman, and child. While this would be a pittance for the most affluent Americans, it would take away 40 percent of the total income of a family of four supported by two wage earners making the average U.S. salary of $45,000 each, and it would be a virtually fatal burden for the poor.

The Obama campaign is currently banging the class-warfare drum, demanding that taxes on those making over $250,000 a year be raised by about 4 percent. Assuming no ill effects on the economy, this measure would raise $80 billion in revenue for the federal government, which conceivably might use as much as half of it, or $40 billion, in various programs that transfer part of their funds to lower-income people. “He pays less. You pay more,” say the president’s ads, promising largesse to the masses from the pockets of the rich. At the same time, however, green ideologues on whose ideas Obama’s energy policies are based are putting forth a proposal that would double the tax burden on the lower-earning 95 percent of the American public, with the poorest 50 percent being hit for a full $1.3 trillion of the increase.

But that’s not all. Because the green tax targets carbon, rather than income, it would act as a dirigiste economic policy favoring businesses that make money trading in paper instruments over those that produce real value through industry, agriculture, transport, mining, and construction. This would impoverish society overall, once again hurting the vulnerable the most, and would destroy tens of millions of blue-collar jobs.

Was ever a more regressive tax policy proposed? And has anyone ever demanded that the United States launch a trade war to force other countries to impose such oppressive policies on their own people, most of whom can afford them even less? There was a time when the Democratic party concerned itself with the needs of poor and working people. Alas, those times are past.

The green tax plan is a declaration of war on the poor.
Click to expand...
Dr. Robert Zubrin, NRO
 
...At this point, taxes are my main concern for dividends. Under current legislation, taxes on dividends to individuals will almost triple in 2013, rising to 43.4% from 15%. From a planning perspective, this will force corporations to reexamine their return to shareholders policy, potentially pulling back on dividend increases and increasing share buybacks. From an individual investor’s prospective, the risk-return ratio shifts significantly since you would now be keeping less than 57 cents on the dollar compared to the current 85 cents...
Click to expand...
-Howard Silverblatt
Standard & Poor's Senior Index Analyst​

 
RobDownSouth said:
Shorter AJ: Let's have Poor Democrats square off against Environmentalist Democrats. Passive Aggressive City!! Derp!
Click to expand...

This word DERP you throw around...does it stand for

Democratic
Elitist
Running
Perverts

?

Just wondering if such a stupid word is meant as a pejorative.
 

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Estimates of underfunded state, county and municipal pension funds are as high as $3 trillion (the figure used by Warren Buffett when he warned of the enormous unfunded liability).

Gaming the system and outright abuse of state and municipal pensions by government employees is rampant.

Even the nutjobs in Cali have FINALLY recognized they've got a problem.


_________________

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ers-send-public-pension-cutback-to-brown.html



California Lawmakers Send Public-Pension Cutback to Brown
By Michael B. Marois
August 31, 2012

California lawmakers approved the broadest rollback of public-employee pension benefits in the state’s history after Governor Jerry Brown and Democrats who control the Legislature struck a last-minute deal.

The overhaul, which may save taxpayers as much as $55 billion over 30 years, would require new employees to pay half the cost of their benefits and work longer before they can retire. It also reduces formulas for calculating benefits and caps pension payments.

Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, pressed for a revamp to show progress in curbing soaring retiree costs before he asks voters for higher income and sales taxes in November. Public resentment of government employees has grown as taxpayers saw their own job prospects and benefits shrink in the longest recession since the 1930s.

“This sweeping pension-reform package will save tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and make the system more sustainable for the long term,” the governor said in a statement.

The bill, which passed the Assembly 48-8, was approved 36-1 in the Senate on the last day of the legislative session. The governor has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the legislation, or it becomes law without his signature.

The measure would require new state and local government employees under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or Calpers, the largest public pension in the U.S., to pay for half of their benefits. The same savings will be sought from current employees through bargaining with their unions.

Smaller Checks
Retirement checks for new workers would be based on wages capped at about $110,000 a year, or $132,000 for those not covered by the federal Social Security system, adjusted for inflation. For most new civil servants who aren’t police officers or firefighters, the minimum retirement age for full benefits would increase to 67 from 55.

The bill also takes aim at so-called pension spiking, a practice that inflates future retirement payments by manipulating overtime, unused vacation and special compensation. It also would limit “double dipping,” involving retirees who collect benefits and also take another government job. And it would ban workers from buying service credit to boost their payouts.

Charter counties or cities with their own pension plans, such as San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, would be exempt from the new rules.

Republican Critics
Republican lawmakers panned the overhaul, saying it didn’t go far enough.

“It doesn’t even scratch the surface of what’s needed in this state before we ask to raise taxes,” said Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, a Republican from Costa Mesa.

Public-employee unions said the bill was overreaching and undermined collective bargaining.

“Ripping billions of dollars of pension benefits from public workers without collective bargaining is unfair and wrong,” said Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, a coalition of unions representing 1.5 million public employees and retirees.

Calpers said today the changes may save the state and local governments $42 billion to $55 billion over the next 30 years. It wouldn’t immediately improve the system’s unfunded liability, its actuary said.

Unfunded Liability
Calpers, with assets of $237.3 billion, had 72 percent of the assets needed to cover obligations to its 1.6 million beneficiaries as of June 30, 2011, according to a report.

The fund earned 1 percent in the fiscal year that ended June 30, below its target of 7.5 percent. When Calpers underperforms, the state and municipalities must make up the difference to meet its obligations.

Brown and Republicans last year called for a new type of pension, combining elements of a 401(k) savings plan common among nongovernment employers with conventional defined-benefit systems that guarantee payments for life.

Such a so-called hybrid plan would have spread to workers some of the market risk now borne by taxpayers, who must make up for pension-investment shortfalls. The hybrid was opposed by labor unions.

“This is not the end-all, be-all, but it brings us considerably down the road to public-pension reform,” said Assemblyman Warren Furutani, the Long Beach Democrat who headed a conference committee that drafted the legislation.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ers-send-public-pension-cutback-to-brown.html
Click to expand...
 
fuckwaffle said:
So, in your little world an acronym can't be a pejorative?

Then again I guess you would pick acronym, because you can't spell pejorative.
Click to expand...

Oh no, a typo completely invalidates the point. :rolleyes:

Derp is a pejorative, you were trying to make up a cute acronym from something that isn't one.

But then, you aren't the sharpest knife are you herp-a-derp?
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Oh no, a typo completely invalidates the point. :rolleyes:

Derp is a pejorative, you were trying to make up a cute acronym from something that isn't one.

But then, you aren't the sharpest knife are you herp-a-derp?
Click to expand...

If you don't know what it means then just say so, I'm sure not too many will laugh at you. I promise not to, much.
 
"Economists seem to believe the role of central banks is to prevent every recession. That policy works for a while, then as happened in the US with the housing crash, an even bigger recession occurs that the central bank is unable to stop or even slow.

"The US economy is cooling substantially and Europe is a complete basket case. Moreover, China's infrastructure is already seriously overbuilt. There are no magic solutions for China."

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#4ZSMOeXwGEEYuwuz.99//
 
Abbott & Costello Get It.



COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America ..



ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 8%.



COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?



ABBOTT: No, that's 15%.



COSTELLO: You just said 8%.



ABBOTT: 8% Unemployed.



COSTELLO: Right 8% out of work.



ABBOTT: No, that's 15%.



COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 15% unemployed.



ABBOTT: No, that's 8%...



COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8% or 15%?



ABBOTT: 8% are unemployed. 15% are out of work.



COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.



ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.



COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!



ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.



COSTELLO: What point?



ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.



COSTELLO: To whom?



ABBOTT: The unemployed.



COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.



ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.



COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?



ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!



COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?



ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 8%. Otherwise it would be 15%. You don't want to read about 15% unemployment, do ya?



COSTELLO: That would be frightening..



ABBOTT: Absolutely.



COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?



ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.



COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?



ABBOTT: Correct.



COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?



ABBOTT: Bingo.



COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.



ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.



COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!



ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
 
For those who missed it.

Abbott & Costello Get It.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America ..

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 15%.

COSTELLO: You just said 8%.

ABBOTT: 8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 15%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 15% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 8%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8% or 15%?

ABBOTT: 8% are unemployed. 15% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 8%. Otherwise it would be 15%. You don't want to read about 15% unemployment, do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening..

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
That's good.


Where did you steal it from?
Click to expand...

Stole it? Really:mad:

You think me uncapable of coming up with wit and mirth and brilliance on my own?

WHY?

Have I not shown thruout the YEARS I can do that and more:mad::mad::mad:










































































from the TELL A JOKE THREAD ON LIT:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
323
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
448
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top