with futures point to a sell off today. Hope all you idiot investors that voted for hope and change enjoy the coming sell off. Dow 7,000 by Jan 21st
Dow 1500 by 2012
If you want somewhere to hide....electric companies should do ok. since there will be no new electric plants built in the next 4 years. alternative energy companies should fly when the EPA classifies CO2 as a toxic gas on the same order as cyinade. Or you can go short on the any and all every union companies. US steel, cat, BA....drug comapnies...heavy exporting companies should also take a massive hit today...companies like DE...CAT...healthcare insurance companies like united healthcare are done. short the hell out of them...
GM might be a buy here since they will be owned by the government in short order. buy the preferred or the bonds in GM, F ...
I would withdraw all 401k funds before jan 1st. Take the 10% penalty and keep your cash as the gov looks for all types of wealth to take over... 28 years of growth is going to meet a brick wall called liberalism/socialism. what yours is now mine and what's mine is yours...
yes it was true in 1775 when Paine wrote Common Sense and declared government a necassary evil and it is true in 2008.
The only answer is a divided governemnt that is as small as possible. People calling for government to "fix" their problems do not understand this concept. Out of the 4 canidates on the two tickets only Gov Palin has stated that gov is the problem not the solution. She gets it and understands.
So are you an anarchist? Even I believe government has a usefulness. It should just be limited. Limited b/c no human run institution is perfect...absolutely no gov wouldn't work either.
Simple answers can work if you make them work. A flat tax structure should represent what the populus can afford. It can work and if you institute a lower flat tax on all income (no deductions or "illegal" loopholes), then the IRS can focus on who's paying taxes and who's dodging.
I agree with unseen. If the government is spending more money than any class can afford to pay in taxes it is not being representative of the people. The government needs to CUT its spending not raise the burden on citizens. Why shouldn't the gov be as accountable as I am? When I draw up a budget I have to spend what we make and NO MORE? I've yet to meet an employer who gave me a raise b/c I just wanted to increase my spending.
Which begs the question: is the gov working for us (like it should be) or are we working for the gov?
"That's why I don't understand why candidates didn't push a flat tax structure. It would be more fair and the richer people would still be paying more money, just the same percent."
I doubt we will ever see a flat tax as long as the wealthy run the country. I wish I could get people to understand, that the very rich pay less tax then you or I do. Do some research. Look up articles written by the IRS.You would probably be shocked how many rich actually use illegal loopholes to get away with not paying taxes. No matter what the Dems say, the middle class will always pay the largest bulk of taxes to finance their programs.
I wish Americans would someday wake up and realize our total government is corrupt. They lie, they cheat and no matter what they con us with, they are all in the corruption together. We are all merely pawns in their sick games.
I can hardly believe how naive Americans still are.
here is an idea. Hmmm Cut spending. There is NO REASOn that government needs to spend 3.5TRillion or 22.55 of GDP. that is beyond the pale and my main dislike Bush. As far as spending
Bush is the most liberal president ever. He even beat out LBJ in the last couple of months.
Any system that put more value on the weathy voter would again see power and money migrate to the very few. A flat tax system might sound good, but since the wealthy already pay the majority of taxes, we would all have to pay a rate near what they currently pay for the government to retain its current revenues. I don't think the poor could pay 30%+ of their income to tax and still put a roof over their heads and food in their mouths. Minimum wages would have to rise and that would screw up many other aspects of our economy. I think you'll find that simple answers to complex situations are almost always flawed.
You have your points, and I'm not on the "only the strongest survive" capitalist bent because yes, uncontrolled greed can be just as nasty as uncontrolled redistributions (which is another form of greed in my opinion).
Here's what I don't like. You say that only the rich have enough money to pay for everyone's bills. To me, everyone else better reduce their spending. I don't think the rich should be footing the bill for the middle and lower class who simply are the victims of their own overspending (the root of our current financial problems). Once again, I think the overspending ties into a mentality that everyone "deserves" the life of the 250kers, which is incorrect.
That's why I don't understand why candidates didn't push a flat tax structure. It would be more fair and the richer people would still be paying more money, just the same percent. To me, our current and Obama's proposed tax structure is a form of taxation without representation. If 250kers are going to pay more of the government, they should get more say. Or at the very least, people who don't pay any taxes probably shouldn't get to vote. Why should they get a voice in how other people's money (taxpayers) will be spent?
I agree that some socialism is needed to dampen the excess of capitalism. however, socialism IMHO should always be the minority of the equation. I see no problem with the 40hr work week, OT pay, holiday pay, vactions, etc. child labor laws (but I think 16 is plenty old enough to work)
The problem comes when you allow socilaism to be the controlling fraction of gov. Like capitalism going to an extreme, socialism also goes to an extreme. socilaism taken to the extrem makes everyone poor. everyone.
But regardless of the good/bad of socialism one thing is clear. socialism is very bad for a stock market. It kills company profits, it increases labor costs, regulation costs etc. In the end it costs jobs, depresses shareholder vaule and hurts sales. Therefore the next 4 years, if Obama governs how his actions in the past say he will, will be very bad for the stock market. Upward mobility will become harder for the lower classes as capital becomes harder to get.
First, higher income earners already pay a disproportionately high rate of income tax, so when you talk about "spreading the wealth" as some kind of new socialist idea, please keep in mind that (in this respect) every American administration for most of the past century has been socialist. It's all a matter of degree.
As for why, it's simple. Lower income earners do not have enough money to finance government programs (and wars).
Is it the right thing to do? That's another question. In my opinion, yes higher income earners have to pay more to keep things in balance. Without some form of income distibution, the rich simply get richer because money means power, and power makes money. Pure capitalism taken to the extreme would have all money and power in the hands of a single person (like a monarch). That person could pay as little as he wanted for goods and services because the peasants would be starving for it. At the same time, there would be no incentive for a peasant to come up with a new inovative business, because the only viable customer would be the monarch. In the end, everyone (including the monarch) would be less wealthy than he would if some form of wealth distribution was built into the system. Henry Ford realized this when he started making cars. He paid his line workers enough that they could afford one of his cars even though that was more than what the employment market required at the time.
There is a balance to be struck between socialism and capitalism that provides the maximum wealth for the maximum number of people. When I look at our current financial problems, I think that we have strayed too far towards the capitalist end that has too much money in the hands of too few. (In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. - wikipedia "wealth")
I am no longer a $250K+er, but I've been there and I've experienced how money makes money. I was fortunate in my early career and managed to save and invest enough money to leave work in my 30s. I thought it was a temporary hiatus, but almost two decades later, I find that I have more money now than when I left work. How? Because money makes money. Once one has enough money to live on the earnings from fixed income vehicles, the rest is just gravy. The added bonus is that I am no longer vulnerable to panic and excess emotion in investments. I'm actually enjoying this market downturn because I'm able to roll over some fixed income dollars into stocks that were previously overpriced (imo). However, I will never go more than 60% in stocks and the rest gives me the security that I need to invest objectively.
I know many other people like myself. Some are here through hard work and smart business decisions. Some (like I consider myself) were mainly lucky being in the right business at the right time. Many more were either born into money or married into it. You can argue all you like that these people all deserve what they have and that those with less deserve only what they have, however that won't change the fact that the wealthy are the only ones with enough money to pay for all of our current bills.
why they want it? they call it justice, they think they are poor because of the "man" who and what this "man" is still up in the air. They think they are poor because of outside reasons. that if only it wasn't for the rich they would be able to buy things. It is an ewmotional response to life's troubles instead of a mental response.
And yes there is nothing wrong with being poor, lower income people are some of the best people I know with good strong characters. Money is not important for everyone that is until the house payment is due. Then it is because the man kept them down instead of their choices on what job to take. To them why should a doctor make more than a teacher, why should a CEO make more than someone on the line, why should a truck driver make less than an Train engineer. It is that unfairness that drives the people. They don't see the way the wages are determined by the shadow hand of the free market they just see the final result and sasy it's not fair.
which all children due until they grow up. We have raised a nation of children and there are no adults left.
I find it interesting that no one wants to explain why 250kers should have their wealth cut into for people who do not deserve it. I really, sincerely would like to have the "other side" explain this to me. I also don't understand why this country is pushing for a flat tax structure. That's as fair as fair can get in taxation.
The only caveat I have is that being poor is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the definition of poor. As long as they have money to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families I don't think that all people in lower class income brackets necessarily made mistakes or have a poverty mindset. Some of them (teachers, social workers, missionaries/ministers, etc.) take low paying jobs because they have servant's hearts. I know several people who are intelligent enough to make a lot more money in other fields but choose not to. I think that is noble, and the ones I know like that certainly don't want anyone else's money that they didn't earn.