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

[4est_4est_Gump]

Simple.

A tax on profits isn't the same as an operating expense. The rest you should be able to figure out on your own.

(But drop the needless crap about preventing)

This is wrong.

You need to tell us how you are going to tax them without taxing us...

Instead of giving an answer, you went on troll hunt, which is some funny shit coming from a known, admitted liar who's very first acts upon joining this board were acts of deception; three people using one alt, or so you claim...

Now answer the question. How do you tax a businessman without taxing his customers?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

While we are celebrating, perhaps we should think about the cleanup after the party...

But in the immortal words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive, "you ain't seen nothing yet!" Obama's controversial EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, has pushed through the agency a passel of new regulations that will raise the cost of electricity dramatically over the next three years.

These new EPA regulations -- clearly intended to make up for the fact that the administration couldn't get its cap-and-trade legislation through Congress even when its own party controlled both houses -- and their baleful effects are the focus of a detailed new study by economist Kathleen Hartnett White (of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment).

In her study ("EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche: 'A Regulatory Spree Unprecedented in U.S. History'"), Ms. White reviews ten major new rules that either have been already adopted or are under review by the agency. She argues convincingly that the EPA is using the Clean Air Act (in a way never intended by Congress) to hobble fossil fuel energy production.

The rules she discusses are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("Utility MACT"), the Industrial Boiler MACT, the Portland Cement Kiln MACT, the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule, the Coal Combustion Residuals Rule, the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Particulate Matter NAAQS, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources, and the GHG Regulation of Mobile Source. Behind these banal, bureaucratic labels lies the banality of evil: the plan of forcing a massive change of life and living standards without the consent of the governed (that is, the victims).

Ms. White estimates that these rules, scheduled to become operational by 2015, will cost our economy more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of jobs. This would occur in the midst of the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/like_the_price_of_gas_just_wait.html#ixzz1nxtHdbb8

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes and here's how that happens.

As most of us know with 401Ks there are conditions on many of the accounts, such as you cannot touch them for so many years, you can only move a certain percentage each year, etc. If you weren't so fucking blinded by your hate and eagerness to destroy, something which Throb believes he is a master in, then he would not be able to make you look so partisanly stupid by taking a few random facts, out of order, and fitting them into that hateful Gollum-like internal dialog that grants him the moral authority to do that which he cries foul over like an angry schoolgirl; the use of personal information.

So it is easy to see that when I moved my money, I was not able to move it all out of stock, nor would I ever want to any more than I would want to put it all into gold.

Now, let's get back to you telling us how a corporation can be taxed and not have that tax passed on to the consumer.

Asshat.

Btw, we see that you lie on a regular basis...

So if other people 'lie' and you get your panties in a wad over it, does that not make you a hypocrite?

See AJ Spin. Spin, AJ, Spin!

Virtually very mutual fund family nowadays has a near-cash money market option (maximum safety, minimum risk). Now, and only now, you're trying to convince us that your mutual fund famly (which I would point out you refuse to name, because that will likely expose your previous lie) does NOT have a near-cash or money market account.

You simply lied when you told everyone you "took your money out of the stock market". You wanted to denigrated President Obama's economic policies, so you made this up.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Spin baybee spin...


You're trying to make decade-old facts fit a new narrative. If the economic questions are too hard for you to handle, just admit it...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Spin baybee spin...


You're trying to make decade-old facts fit a new narrative. If the economic questions are too hard for you to handle, just admit it...

That's right, chief. When it was convenient for you to do so, you claimed you took your retirement money outta the market. Now that this claim has become a tad inconvenient to support your current narrative, you thump your chest and bluster that no, you never said such a thing and the six or so quotes of you claiming to do so are lies, lies, lies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*yawn*



I'm not Ken. Get back to us when you've straightened out the story line.

Got anything on how Obama is going to lower energy prices with Algae?

 

[mercury14]

You're so funny. You accuse me of following talking points, and yet, you're following the democratic talking points line by line... Then you tell me that when debating politics, quoting conservative thinkers is not allowed regardless of the content of their thoughts or facts. Are we to debate using only references sanctioned by the New York Times? lol.

The number of times you've seen me harvest facts from New York Times editorials (or similar editorials) is exactly zero.

And no, I'm not taking democratic talking points. When I go to the BLS for labor data or to JP Morgan Chase for stimulus analysis, that's me using INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. Therefore your accusation against me is patently false.

You appear to believe that if anyone references objective data and analysis that counters your argument, that the person is a Democratic shill. Either that or objective data is actually liberal. You're irrational to the core.

The problem with the stimulus was the opportunity cost. Sure, it saved a few government jobs, but not much else

You've said it yourself: you're backing this argument with made-up partisan numbers. In contrast I backed my argument with six separate objective non-partisan sources, four private sector and two public.

Therefore I win the debate. I will not convince you though because you choose to believe propaganda over objectivity.

and certainly didn't come anywhere close to achieving the promised goal (or are you going to try to tell me that we've been in a strong and roaring recovery with low unemployment these past three years?)

The error was miscalculating the severity of the upcoming recession, not miscalculating the efficacy of the stimulus. You like to confuse the two in order to reach the conclusion you WANT to reach.

The proof of this is the many studies that have shown that the "recovery" was the slowest on record since the depression in contrast to the Democrats were predictions of a robust and rapid recovery from their tinkering (and Romer was the economic "voice" of the democrats from the White House).

The fact that the recovery has been slow isn't proof that the stimulus didn't work. The stimulus was meant to tackle a smaller recession because that's what we (yes Dems and Repubs) thought we were going to have. It worked fine but it was never designed to single-handedly get us out of the Great Recession.

 

[mercury14]

Got anything on how Obama is going to lower energy prices with Algae?

Half-wit AJ got his lying algae talking point for the day.

Moron, go read Obama's speech to see what he did NOT say about algae: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/23/remarks-president-energy

You're no different at all than Jen these days, if you ever were.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More "deflection!"

This is wrong.

You need to tell us how you are going to tax them without taxing us...

Instead of giving an answer, you went on troll hunt, which is some funny shit coming from a known, admitted liar who's very first acts upon joining this board were acts of deception; three people using one alt, or so you claim...

Now answer the question. How do you tax a businessman without taxing his customers?

Did you not see the post above? Algae is just a way of highlighting how out of touch he is with us, remember, he turned the White House thermostat UP so he could roll his sleeves up and feel at home, like Hawaii...

Even though he spent 20 years in Chicago.

 

[RobDownSouth]

*yawn*
I'm not Ken. Get back to us when you've straightened out the story line.
Got anything on how Obama is going to lower energy prices with Algae?

Republican talking points factory urges "all algae all the time" talking point..AJ responds in a major way

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Speaking of liars and lies...

The ‘$40 Per Paycheck’ and Other Payroll Tax Cut Fibs
Posted By Tom Blumer On March 2, 2012 @ 12:29 am In Column,Politics,US News | 2 Comments

In mid-February, during the run-up to the extension of the two percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax to year’s end, the White House, using garbled language sadly not unusual for this bunch, claimed [1] that:

Currently, 160 million Americans benefit for the tax relief that’s set to expire at the end of the month. The typical family saves about $40 with every paycheck.

Neither statement, even after grammatical correction, is anywhere close to being true. We can add both to the pile of falsehoods [2] which will be as thick as a major metro area phone book by the time they’re all done.

A commenter at another site [3] gave Team Obama’s penchant for quickly disseminating and perpetuating persistent fibs while fiercely resisting attempts at correction an interesting term to remember and employ: “viral lying.” The administration’s mendacity on the Social Security tax cut certainly exemplifies it. Meanwhile, establishment press lapdogs, who routinely invented alleged “lies” which weren’t [4] lies at all during George W. Bush’s eight years, have allowed both howlers above to slide with little if any objection, missed glaring inconsistencies in messaging, and have occasionally been duped themselves.

Let’s start with the “160 million Americans” claim. There at least two problems with it:

According to the 2011 annual report [5] of Social Security’s Trustees, “an estimated 157 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes” in 2010. Augmented by the economy’s tiny 2011 improvement, that number probably was about 160 million last year. But this does not mean that 160 million Americans are “currently” working. As of January’s employment report, using the more inclusive Household Survey, total employment, including self-employment, was only 141.6 million [6].
Additionally, not all workers are forced to participate in the Social Security train wreck [7]. At the Coalition to Preserve Retirement Security [8], which should really call itself the “Don’t Force Us to Join Everyone Else’s Bankrupt System Coalition,” the organization’s mission statement [9] tells us that “6.6 million public employees are covered by state or local plans in lieu of Social Security.” Other exempt persons “currently” working would include [10] certain students, federal employees hired before 1984, and members of a few religious groups.
Thus, the administration has overstated the number of American workers who will “currently” benefit from the tax cut by roughly 20%.

Obama’s “$40 per paycheck” for “the typical family” assertion is a far worse fairy tale.

The statement is only true in very narrow circumstances, namely single-earner households where the person employed makes $52,000 per year in taxable Social Security wages and is paid every two weeks. The trouble is, according to a 2009 human resource consultant’s presentation [11], most employees (though I believe it’s a bare majority) are paid weekly (note the spelling; almost everyone thinks they’re paid “weakly,” but I digress). Workers paid every seven days who are unfortunate enough to actually buy the administration’s “$40 per paycheck” fib, in conjunction with White House statements [12] that “the typical family” earns about $50,000 a year, are being misled into believing that the tax cut is far bigger than it really is. A worker paid weekly will only see an extra $40 in each paycheck if he or she makes a far from weak $104,000 per year, which is hardly “typical.” A two-income couple making a combined $50,000 per year where both are paid weekly might actually believe that the tax cut will give them a total of $80 every week in their two paychecks. Don’t spend it, folks, because you’re not going to see it.

On February 14, the White House blog trumpeted [1] how “The President was joined by Americans who have shared what $40 a paycheck means to them, and who would be affected if Congress doesn’t act.” There is virtually no chance that everyone pictured at the gathering is really receiving $40 more in each paycheck as a result of the cut.

Even administration officials can’t keep their story straight — or they are deliberately allowing distortions which create an exaggerated impression of the tax cut’s impact to appear. White House spokesman Jay Carney has twice claimed [13] that the cut involves “$40 a week.” A White House sob stories blog post [12] contains at least three entries showing that some respondents undoubtedly thought that $40 a week was the amount at stake:

“$40 a week, quite simply, is the difference between my son having what he needs and not having what he needs.”
“We can’t afford to lose $40.00 a week.”
“It’s simple. $40/week is over $2,000.00 per year which low income families need to provide housing, rent, food and necessities for their children, especially those who are in school in rural areas.”
Over two dozen of the entries refer to how $40 would help pay for gas. It turns out that for many two-car families, the tax cut won’t even pay for the increase in the price of gas since Christmas.

Not that it’s particularly difficult, but the press has also been fooled. At ABC’s Political Punch [14] blog, Mary Bruce touted Obama’s “victory lap” after the related bill’s recent passage, and wrote that the tax cut “will help middle-class Americans by providing an extra $40 a week in their paychecks.” Anna Fifield at the Financial Times also bit [15]. David Espo at the Associated Press did a Certs imitation [16] (two errors in one sentence) when he wrote that the cut means “an extra $20 a week in the average American paycheck.” No, David. With the multiplicity of pay frequencies, there is no such thing as an “average American paycheck.” Also, gross pay per week in the “average paycheck” is almost $900 [17], leading to a tax cut of roughly $18 per week; the median is $718, a cut of a bit more than $14.

For all the huffing and puffing, this particular propaganda effort probably won’t have much impact on public opinion. When the National Credit Counseling Foundation asked people what they did with their tax cut last year, “Two-thirds said [18] they didn’t even realize their paychecks were larger.”

The administration’s actions, with the unfortunate acquiescence of House and Senate Republicans, are hardly consequence-free. For a second consecutive calendar year, the federal government’s budget deficit will be over $100 billion higher than it otherwise would have been because of a tax cut built on viral lies which will stimulate nothing but the rise in the debt burden future generations will inherit.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-40-per-paycheck-and-other-payroll-tax-cut-fibs/?singlepage=true

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance -- algae. You’ve got a bunch of algae out here, right? (Laughter.) If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing all right.

Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in the United States. And that means greater energy security. That means lower costs. It means more jobs. It means a stronger economy.

Have you seen the costs associated with making fuel out of algae?

Like all his other pipe-dreams, if it were economically feasible, we would be doing it.

Now, how about answering the question?

 

[phrodeau]

Have you seen the costs associated with making fuel out of algae?

Like all his other pipe-dreams, if it were economically feasible, we would be doing it.

Now, how about answering the question?

Swill baby, swill!

 

[mercury14]

Regarding the NRO....I thought they made some good points and there were some facts that supported their points.

No they lied and they're not using facts at all. Calling the boards "death panels" is lying emotional hype that is in no way based in fact. And you're wrong, they did not use facts to support this label.

(but you stupidly took them at face value, didn't ya?)

Are we only allowed to use democrat generated facts when making a point? That's not a very enlightened philosophy.

No let's not use anyone else's talking points okay?

This unelected panel will have the decision authority to decide what programs are covered by the national medical community which, through the law, will dominate almost all of the medical segment of our society. I don't think so much authority should be concentrated in any small group of people. I'm not comfortable having so much central control and apparently, based on the article, there are many others who share my concerns.

Here's why you're wrong. And by "you" I don't really mean you, since you're just parroting the NRO.

- You lied when you said that it IPAB decides what things are "covered by the national medical community which will dominate almost all the medical segment of our society". The IPAB has absolutely nothing to do with private insurance companies for one. It Aetna wants to cover a procedure that doesn't work then they're free to do so.

- You keep bitching about the IPAB members being unelected. But it makes no sense at all for the public to elect medical experts. Additionally elections would mean pharmaceutical and insurance companies would lobby their piss out of the whole process and instantly corrupt it beyond all use.

- Your right wing outrage against the IPAB is manufactured and selective. Medicare has had a review board for decades. As has Medicaid and S-CHIP. The Republican Medicare Part-D has one too. And in NONE of these cases have you ever seen cause to complain. The primary difference now is that the board will make changes without going through congress. And that is a HUGE benefit. Do you really want a senator under the influence of lobbyists deciding what medical procedures are covered through Medicare? Or do you want that decision made by a group of medical experts?

- You keep saying you're not comfortable with such a small group deciding what procedures are covered. If fifteen is too small then why don't you suggest a better number?

- Why aren't you complaining about private insurance companies? They have medical review boards that do the EXACT same thing, only with far less transparency.

- The review board is what conservatives such as yourself call "death panels". You're a liar for suggesting as much.

 

[mercury14]

More "deflection!"



Did you not see the post above? Algae is just a way of highlighting how out of touch he is with us, remember, he turned the White House thermostat UP so he could roll his sleeves up and feel at home, like Hawaii...

Even though he spent 20 years in Chicago.

The algae talking point you were ordered to make illustrates no such thing.

You still haven't read Obama's speech yet, have you? Nope! But you're gonna intentionally misquote it even though you don't even know what you're misquoting...

You're a joke.

 

[richard_daily]

So it is easy to see that when I moved my money, I was not able to move it all out of stock, nor would I ever want to any more than I would want to put it all into gold.

So when you said "all", you were just lying then...

Got it.

 

[mercury14]

So when you said "all", you were just lying then...

Got it.

If AJ believed any of his own posts he wouldn't have a penny on the markets. All that hyperinflation and deflation we're about to have would make investing right now completely foolish.

 

[richard_daily]

If AJ believed any of his own posts he wouldn't have a penny on the markets. All that hyperinflation and deflation we're about to have would make investing right now completely foolish.

His posts lead me to believe that he doesn't have any money to invest.

 

[koalabear]

Stocks dip as investors eye eurozone summit

http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?symbol=%24US%3AINDU&width=298&height=160&c1=3&ce=0&cf=0&d2=0&d3=0&d4=1&d5=0&e8=1&legend=0&banner=5&af=2&palette=2

 

[richard_daily]

http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?symbol=%24US%3AINDU&width=298&height=160&c1=3&ce=0&cf=0&d2=0&d3=0&d4=1&d5=0&e8=1&legend=0&banner=5&af=2&palette=2

Do you post this, because it's a sign of "doom and gloom"?

 

[koalabear]

I sure miss Ken, it's nothing but gloom and doom for me without him.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Do you post this, because it's a sign of "doom and gloom"?

LittleBear hasn't learned anything from posting mid-day DJI numbers before. I don't think it's capable.

It's a decidedly "Conservative" condition.

 

[richard_daily]

*yawn*



I'm not Ken. Get back to us when you've straightened out the story line.

Got anything on how Obama is going to lower energy prices with Algae?

This is one of the most pathetic deflection attempts ever attempted on the GB.

Congrats.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is one of the most pathetic deflection attempts ever attempted on the GB.

Congrats.

He's lost so much credibility on this 401K falsehood...virtually nobody believes him.

When the going gets tough, AJ starts a new userid, so I suspect we'll see one sooner than later.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

http://getfreshminds.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/hole.jpg

"There I was, a-digging this hole
Hole in the ground, so big and sort of round it was
And there was I, digging it deep"

Woof!