How to kickstart en economy

Threedee said:
Dunno, but Desh has used it many times before...

EDIT: The first Google hit is Desh using it on USMB!! :)

The 3rd and 4th hits are here using it here on JPP.
Click to expand...

I made up the term

Do you know what a taint is?

well its someone who wallows in taint
 
Wow - just saw a report where some schools have to trim their budgets so much that some of the "back to school" lists include toilet paper.

How can people be against privatizing social security? How can anyone be against a wholescale slashing of the defense budget? I want to hear legit arguments on why it's worse for seniors to see more of a return on their contributions, and why we still need a cold war sized defense budget.

It's ridiculous watching the news; we're sitting here in a dire situation, barely scraping by, and no one is bringing up the obvious. It's like a household going into foreclosure but still spending half of their income on big vacations and expensive cars, then sitting around the kitchen table mystified about where they can make cuts to save the house.
 
Heeeeeeer's Johnny!

lol
A government that can't even supply toilet paper.
Johnny Carson must be laughing in his grave!

I oppose privatizing Social Security because the people pushing for it are the same people who got us into this mess. IKE warned Republicans not to mess with Social Security back in the fifties. We should pay attention to those who gave us a booming economy. Lady Luck frowns on those who don't!
 
augustino5150 said:
lol
A government that can't even supply toilet paper.
Johnny Carson must be laughing in his grave!

I oppose privatizing Social Security because the people pushing for it are the same people who got us into this mess. IKE warned Republicans not to mess with Social Security back in the fifties. We should pay attention to those who gave us a booming economy. Lady Luck frowns on those who don't!
Click to expand...

That's not a logical reason. In fact, it's exactly the problem. It becomes ideological; here's how that logic works:

Liberals - we can't support SS privatization, because conservatives support it.
Conservatives - we can't support slashing the defense budget, because liberals support it.

Here's a compromise - liberals give in to privatization, and conservatives agree to slash defense. We can make it 1 bill, and save the U.S. economy.

Ike didn't realize that SS was unsustainable in the '50's. The same group that - when polled- says they don't think they'll have SS when they retire, is the same group that is opposed to privatization. It's non-sensical.
 
Onceler said:
Liberals - we can't support SS privatization, because conservatives support it.
Conservatives - we can't support slashing the defense budget, because liberals support it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the sad truth. And isn't Gates proposing cuts to certain military spending? Well that spending happens to be in Virgina and of course the people who live in Virginia and those in Congress from that area are fighting it tooth and nail which I guess is to be expected but nonetheless shows how difficult it can be to cut anything.
 
augustino5150 said:
lol
A government that can't even supply toilet paper.
Johnny Carson must be laughing in his grave!

I oppose privatizing Social Security because the people pushing for it are the same people who got us into this mess. IKE warned Republicans not to mess with Social Security back in the fifties. We should pay attention to those who gave us a booming economy. Lady Luck frowns on those who don't!
Click to expand...

Who gave us a booming econonmy? So even though social security is on an unsubstainable path we should sit back and do nothing about it?
 
cawacko said:
Isn't that the sad truth. And isn't Gates proposing cuts to certain military spending? Well that spending happens to be in Virgina and of course the people who live in Virginia and those in Congress from that area are fighting it tooth and nail which I guess is to be expected but nonetheless shows how difficult it can be to cut anything.
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY why Keynesian economics cannot work, does not work, and never WILL work. Because it creates a false economy dependent on government spending. And when we need to trim the spending because it is out of control, nothing gets cut because TOO MANY PEOPLE DEPEND ON IT!! Government spending is not like priming the well (as Keynesians claim), it's more like giving some ignorant fool a free dose of Crack.
 
Good Luck said:
This is EXACTLY why Keynesian economics cannot work, does not work, and never WILL work. Because it creates a false economy dependent on government spending. And when we need to trim the spending because it is out of control, nothing gets cut because TOO MANY PEOPLE DEPEND ON IT!! Government spending is not like priming the well (as Keynesians claim), it's more like giving some ignorant fool a free dose of Crack.
Click to expand...

Well you globalist outsourcers drive people into the arms of government when you tell them they must compete with people who make 20 cents an hour.

How about a little patriotism from the internationalist fascist, middle-class destroying, short term profiteers?
 
Fat Cats Need More Pie!

Onceler said:
That's not a logical reason. In fact, it's exactly the problem. It becomes ideological; here's how that logic works:

Liberals - we can't support SS privatization, because conservatives support it.
Conservatives - we can't support slashing the defense budget, because liberals support it.



Here's a compromise - liberals give in to privatization, and conservatives agree to slash defense. We can make it 1 bill, and save the U.S. economy.

Ike didn't realize that SS was unsustainable in the '50's. The same group that - when polled- says they don't think they'll have SS when they retire, is the same group that is opposed to privatization. It's non-sensical.
Click to expand...

They're opposed to privatization because those who support it have lost all credibility. Again, the people who support it are the same people who got us into this mess. How can we trust them to manage SS after the disaster they've caused?

IKE knew that SS was as sustainable as America. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush all ran up the debt and turned the American dollar into monopoly money. When we can no longer sustain SS it won't matter. We'll have reached the end of our time.

Privatizing social security will not save the economy. It will only give those with OPM derived incomes more money to skim.
The mega yacht class of ship didn't even exist in 2000. There are now over 170 of them and the shipyards in Singapore can't build them fast enough to meet the demand.

Why would you want to give them an even bigger piece of the pie?
 
augustino5150 said:
They're opposed to privatization because those who support it have lost all credibility. Again, the people who support it are the same people who got us into this mess. How can we trust them to manage SS after the disaster they've caused?

IKE knew that SS was as sustainable as America. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush all ran up the debt and turned the American dollar into monopoly money. When we can no longer sustain SS it won't matter. We'll have reached the end of our time.

Privatizing social security will not save the economy. It will only give those with OPM derived incomes more money to skim.
The mega yacht class of ship didn't even exist in 2000. There are now over 170 of them and the shipyards in Singapore can't build them fast enough to meet the demand.

Why would you want to give them an even bigger piece of the pie?
Click to expand...

Uh, it's the individual that will control their account not "them". And your hackness is showing because Clinton and Carter ran up debt they just did it at smaller amounts I believe.
 
augustino5150 said:
They're opposed to privatization because those who support it have lost all credibility. Again, the people who support it are the same people who got us into this mess. How can we trust them to manage SS after the disaster they've caused?

IKE knew that SS was as sustainable as America. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush all ran up the debt and turned the American dollar into monopoly money. When we can no longer sustain SS it won't matter. We'll have reached the end of our time.

Privatizing social security will not save the economy. It will only give those with OPM derived incomes more money to skim.
The mega yacht class of ship didn't even exist in 2000. There are now over 170 of them and the shipyards in Singapore can't build them fast enough to meet the demand.

Why would you want to give them an even bigger piece of the pie?
Click to expand...
Privatizing SS (by itself) may not "save" the economy. But we can make it so general fund tax dollars (ie: even more high-end deficit spending) is not used to shore up SS as the current system reaches its upward limits and starts to collapse. Proper investment of FICA revenues even has the potential to make SS the fully self-sustaining program it was supposed to be when they passed the original legislation.

And as far as investment brokers go, they get paid for a particular job. If they do that job for the government, they deserve to get paid for that, too, no matter how much they made working for other clients. Opposing an idea because it makes somebody you don't like money is assinine in the extreme. Take your penis envy complaints to the appropriate forum.
 
I'll Trade My SS For A Mega Yacht

cawacko said:
Who gave us a booming econonmy? So even though social security is on an unsubstainable path we should sit back and do nothing about it?
Click to expand...

IKE gave us a booming economy. WWII did not end the depression. Troops returned home to a ruined economy with no jobs. IKE made us what we are today and he did it by taxing the hell out of the fat cats to pay building the infrastructure. Let me remind you that it's the American worker who creates our wealth and fights our wars, not the fat cats who have brought our economy to ruin and still want to get their greedy fingers on the only money left...worker's retirement.

You don't have to sit back and do nothing about it. Stop giving fat cats a free ride. When the income tax was first enacted it was the fat cats who talked us into it. They promised that only the top 2% would ever pay the tax. Why would the fat cats support a tax that was only levied on them?
Do you pay income tax?
Are you in the top 2%?
Now do you see how it works?
Do you still trust them with Social Security?
 
Learn To Play Craps

cawacko said:
Uh, it's the individual that will control their account not "them". And your hackness is showing because Clinton and Carter ran up debt they just did it at smaller amounts I believe.
Click to expand...

Your Hackness...I like that. Thanks!
"Them" hold the pot.
"Them" take the vig out of your bet.
The only thing you control is how far to pull down your shorts!
 
Penis Envy?

Good Luck said:
Privatizing SS (by itself) may not "save" the economy. But we can make it so general fund tax dollars (ie: even more high-end deficit spending) is not used to shore up SS as the current system reaches its upward limits and starts to collapse. Proper investment of FICA revenues even has the potential to make SS the fully self-sustaining program it was supposed to be when they passed the original legislation.

And as far as investment brokers go, they get paid for a particular job. If they do that job for the government, they deserve to get paid for that, too, no matter how much they made working for other clients. Opposing an idea because it makes somebody you don't like money is assinine in the extreme. Take your penis envy complaints to the appropriate forum.
Click to expand...

Investment brokers are not wage earners. Their incomes are derived from raking the table. The rake has become intolerable and is dragging down the economy.
Markets are a game exactly the same as a poker table. I don't mind a player winning as long as I get to shoot the cheats. You want to protect the cheats...simple as that.
 
augustino5150 said:
IKE gave us a booming economy. WWII did not end the depression. Troops returned home to a ruined economy with no jobs. IKE made us what we are today and he did it by taxing the hell out of the fat cats to pay building the infrastructure. Let me remind you that it's the American worker who creates our wealth and fights our wars, not the fat cats who have brought our economy to ruin and still want to get their greedy fingers on the only money left...worker's retirement.

You don't have to sit back and do nothing about it. Stop giving fat cats a free ride. When the income tax was first enacted it was the fat cats who talked us into it. They promised that only the top 2% would ever pay the tax. Why would the fat cats support a tax that was only levied on them?
Do you pay income tax?
Are you in the top 2%?
Now do you see how it works?
Do you still trust them with Social Security?
Click to expand...

Everyone wins if you privatize. Not just "fat cats."

I hate this class envy stuff. It's time to retire it.
 
augustino5150 said:
Investment brokers are not wage earners. Their incomes are derived from raking the table. The rake has become intolerable and is dragging down the economy.
Markets are a game exactly the same as a poker table. I don't mind a player winning as long as I get to shoot the cheats. You want to protect the cheats...simple as that.
Click to expand...
That's all good until you start defining cheats as those who are successful beyond what you believe people should be. Again with the penis envy bullshit. Grow up a bit. Your liberal class warfare crap was tiring 50 years ago and hasn't gotten any better since.

My investment broker is quite wealthy. So what? Over the years he increased my retirement investments by more than an order of magnitude. It didn't make me rich, but it is making my retirement a lot more comfortable and enjoyable. Am I supposed to begrudge him getting rich for knowing how to invest in the market successfully? I used his knowledge to make money, and I paid him money (the "rake" as you call it) for his allowing me to use his knowledge and abilities. Where is the cheating?

So we put a sizable chunk (but not all, no investment broker worth anything would advise that) of SS in the market. The market brings back a 10%+ long term return on the SS funds invested. The brokers take their fee. We would still be 9% of 2.5 trillion dollars better off that we would without the brokers. (for that matter, considering the sums involved, I'd bet Uncle Sam could negotiate a smaller fee, like 0.1%, leaving us with 9.9% annual ROI.) Where is the cheating? YEs, 0.1% of 2.5 trillion dollars is 2.5 billion dollars annually, divided among how ever many brokers Uncle Sam hires to run SS investments, which is an obscene amout of money, but where is the cheating?

How, exactly, are you claiming investment brokers are "cheating"? Because they are rich? Because they (at least the good ones) are successful at reading the market and knowing when/where to invest (buy low) and when/where to sell high? Because they (gasp) actually CHARGE for their knowledge and abilities according to how much they make for their clients? Tell us, oh hero of Evince, HOW DO THEY CHEAT? Or is that claim just another piece of mindless liberal economic penis envy?
 
Last edited:
If it was easy to make money on Wall Street, everyone would do it. Most of those guys started out making 100+ calls a day and working 80 hour weeks to get where they are. I'd like to see everyone try that.

I hate it when people begrudge money & success. Yes, there are overnight success stories, and the inheritance class, but for the most part, those who made it that far distinguished themselves with either hard work, brains or ideas that were better than their colleagues. It's ridiculous to talk about punitively taxing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top