Puro's Rants

Puro -

The two stories quite aren't exact opposites. One talks about a "cooling period" and the other talks about a much more long-term prognosis. That is why our data set is too small. We can't look at a 10- or 20- or 30-year period and draw any meaningful conclusions about trends in warming. Your point about income protection for the scientists holds validity, but there will always be things to research. You see this income protection trend in things like studies for the medical industry. However, I see the likelihood of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists studying warming trends as far less robust than the likelihood of a manufacturer that relies heavily on coal-fired plants funding its own release of information countering global warming studies.

On the topic of income protection -- do you really want to argue with someone who will be headed to the shop in two days to figure out what he's going to send you next week?

dutyje:
Puro -

The two stories quite aren't exact opposites. One talks about a "cooling period" and the other talks about a much more long-term prognosis. That is why our data set is too small. We can't look at a 10- or 20- or 30-year period and draw any meaningful conclusions about trends in warming. Your point about income protection for the scientists holds validity, but there will always be things to research. You see this income protection trend in things like studies for the medical industry. However, I see the likelihood of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists studying warming trends as far less robust than the likelihood of a manufacturer that relies heavily on coal-fired plants funding its own release of information countering global warming studies.

On the topic of income protection -- do you really want to argue with someone who will be headed to the shop in two days to figure out what he's going to send you next week?

Haha Smart a$$! I am guessing you should be getting yours in the mail either today or tomorrow. But you never know with the freakin USPS... I sent you a PM a while ago askin if you have seen my package yet. Uhhh... Did that sound gay?

I know this will probably ruffle some feathers because Rush is such an extreme figure, you either like him or hate him, but I like this idea! The contents of this post are from an article by El Rushbo that I read today. Here is the link in case anyone would care to see it themselves. Bravo Rush! Bravo! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

PuroFreak:
dutyje:
Puro -

The two stories quite aren't exact opposites. One talks about a "cooling period" and the other talks about a much more long-term prognosis. That is why our data set is too small. We can't look at a 10- or 20- or 30-year period and draw any meaningful conclusions about trends in warming. Your point about income protection for the scientists holds validity, but there will always be things to research. You see this income protection trend in things like studies for the medical industry. However, I see the likelihood of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists studying warming trends as far less robust than the likelihood of a manufacturer that relies heavily on coal-fired plants funding its own release of information countering global warming studies.

On the topic of income protection -- do you really want to argue with someone who will be headed to the shop in two days to figure out what he's going to send you next week?
Haha Smart a$$! I am guessing you should be getting yours in the mail either today or tomorrow. But you never know with the freakin USPS... I sent you a PM a while ago askin if you have seen my package yet. Uhhh... Did that sound gay?

Dude - I posted up in the "Good Traders" thread that I had received the package. 1/26 according to my spreadsheet

So I guess you didn't see my joke about how you had embraced the new administration and voluntarily included an extra tax above our agreed trade

dutyje:
PuroFreak:
dutyje:
Puro -

The two stories quite aren't exact opposites. One talks about a "cooling period" and the other talks about a much more long-term prognosis. That is why our data set is too small. We can't look at a 10- or 20- or 30-year period and draw any meaningful conclusions about trends in warming. Your point about income protection for the scientists holds validity, but there will always be things to research. You see this income protection trend in things like studies for the medical industry. However, I see the likelihood of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists studying warming trends as far less robust than the likelihood of a manufacturer that relies heavily on coal-fired plants funding its own release of information countering global warming studies.

On the topic of income protection -- do you really want to argue with someone who will be headed to the shop in two days to figure out what he's going to send you next week?
Haha Smart a$$! I am guessing you should be getting yours in the mail either today or tomorrow. But you never know with the freakin USPS... I sent you a PM a while ago askin if you have seen my package yet. Uhhh... Did that sound gay?
Dude - I posted up in the "Good Traders" thread that I had received the package. 1/26 according to my spreadsheet

So I guess you didn't see my joke about how you had embraced the new administration and voluntarily included an extra tax above our agreed trade

HAHA You a$$ monkey! I hadn't seen that until now! Hope ya enjoy putz! LMAO

Puro -

Thanks for posting that editorial. I don't disagree with much at all in the first half. I disagree with his plan for a compromise, and pretty much everything in the second half. Also, as Kuzi has stated before, throwing around inflammatory terms such as "porkulus" are nothing more than name-calling, and reduce the credibility of any argument. Also, why in the world does a "tax cut" have to come in the form of a corporate tax cut? I strongly disagree with that.

["There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?"]

So you disagree with this statement? Why wouldn't a compromise be a better way to handle this and what good does telling us everyday how bleak our economic future is, do for consumer confidence? Seriously he has a good point here and even if you disagree with his way line of thinking, why not give it a chance?

I don't disagree with that. I agree with the terms of his proposal. Specifically, diverting a massive tax break to corporatins rather than to citizens.

But a cut in the capitol gains tax isn't to corporations. I don't see a problem with cutting taxes for corporations though. They provide most of the jobs in our country and by cutting taxes for them you are releiving some of the burden from sales being down and it helps them stop cutting jobs and even promotes creating new jobs. I agree there should be some tax cuts to ordinary citizens as well. A 5% cut in income taxes across the board IF you pay taxes. Under the proposed Stimulus Bill it would entitle ILLEGAL aliens $500-$700 dollars of our tax money in the form of "rebates"... That is unacceptable to me when these people don't even pay taxes to begin with.

The current Stimulus package is horrible. The media is trying to slam the House Republicans because they all voted against it, but they fail to mention most of the time that 11 Democrats voted against it too. If President Obama wants to be "bi-partisan" as he said throughout his campaign and even since elected and sworn in, he would see that this was a bad idea when not only did he fail to sway ANY house republicans, but he couldn't even get all of his own party to vote for it. The image of "Obama the Uniter" that I heard so many times over the past couple of years is fading away fast.

B of A has gotten $45B from the government, yet we are still cutting 30,000 jobs. I don't think that the bailout money has made a dent in the layoff plans, so the argument that corporate welfare trickles down to the masses holds no water.

A recession is caused by the reduction in circulation of money. In other words, there isn't any less money in the world, it's just moving less quickly. The money is there, it's just not being spent. A reduction in capitol gains tax is foolish because it encourages people to take their money and put it away, rather than spend it. Also, the very nature of "capitol gains" is that you don't pay that tax if you don't already have money. Do we want to reduce taxes on people that have money? Or reduce taxes on people that don't have money? Classic right/left separation there.

First of all the BofA thing doesn't shoot down an entire set of beliefs that have been around since WAY before you or I or even B of A existed.

Next I did say the corp tax reduction is a good thing, but I also said taxes on the general public was needed. That will cause more money to be freed up and spent. Also if you know your money in that you are investing if making you more money then you are free to spend more of what you have now. If I've got money in the bank and it is growing very slowly because the government keeps taxing it, I'm going to have to put it twice as much just to keep it growning to provide for my future, where as if they aren't taxing it and it is growing well enough that I can afford to live my golden years out however I want, then I can start having some fun now and spending more money now. I can buy that new car, or new boat, or new electronic widget everyone has been raving about. That in turn creates more jobs. Plus the cut in taxes for the general public gives them more money to also sink back into the public. I don't want to reduce taxes on people who have no money because most of them don't pay taxes to begin with. Thats not a tax cut, thats a hand out and helps noone.

On an unrelated side note.. PLEASE GOD LET THEM BOOT BLAGO OUT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT UGLY F***ING HAIR ON TV 24/7 ANYMORE!!!! We now return you to our regularly scheduled bitching! haha

PuroFreak:
First of all the BofA thing doesn't shoot down an entire set of beliefs that have been around since WAY before you or I or even B of A existed.

Next I did say the corp tax reduction is a good thing, but I also said taxes on the general public was needed. That will cause more money to be freed up and spent. Also if you know your money in that you are investing if making you more money then you are free to spend more of what you have now. If I've got money in the bank and it is growing very slowly because the government keeps taxing it, I'm going to have to put it twice as much just to keep it growning to provide for my future, where as if they aren't taxing it and it is growing well enough that I can afford to live my golden years out however I want, then I can start having some fun now and spending more money now. I can buy that new car, or new boat, or new electronic widget everyone has been raving about. That in turn creates more jobs. Plus the cut in taxes for the general public gives them more money to also sink back into the public. I don't want to reduce taxes on people who have no money because most of them don't pay taxes to begin with. Thats not a tax cut, thats a hand out and helps noone.

The arguments here fly in the face of the concept that by taxing less, it motivates the circulation of money. If an argument is giong to be made that taxing less will motivate people to spend more, then taxing capitol gains less will motivate people to save more. The cost/benefit analysis just plain makes sense. That's why people put money into a 401(k) or Roth IRA (or both, if they're smart). I made the statement on here earlier that if you want to increase the speed at which money is circulating, give $20 to the guy begging for food. Watch him take it to the liquor store or the gas station to purchase his drug of choice. That $20 will be circulating before you can drive down the block.

dutyje:
PuroFreak:
First of all the BofA thing doesn't shoot down an entire set of beliefs that have been around since WAY before you or I or even B of A existed.

Next I did say the corp tax reduction is a good thing, but I also said taxes on the general public was needed. That will cause more money to be freed up and spent. Also if you know your money in that you are investing if making you more money then you are free to spend more of what you have now. If I've got money in the bank and it is growing very slowly because the government keeps taxing it, I'm going to have to put it twice as much just to keep it growning to provide for my future, where as if they aren't taxing it and it is growing well enough that I can afford to live my golden years out however I want, then I can start having some fun now and spending more money now. I can buy that new car, or new boat, or new electronic widget everyone has been raving about. That in turn creates more jobs. Plus the cut in taxes for the general public gives them more money to also sink back into the public. I don't want to reduce taxes on people who have no money because most of them don't pay taxes to begin with. Thats not a tax cut, thats a hand out and helps noone.
The arguments here fly in the face of the concept that by taxing less, it motivates the circulation of money. If an argument is giong to be made that taxing less will motivate people to spend more, then taxing capitol gains less will motivate people to save more. The cost/benefit analysis just plain makes sense. That's why people put money into a 401(k) or Roth IRA (or both, if they're smart). I made the statement on here earlier that if you want to increase the speed at which money is circulating, give $20 to the guy begging for food. Watch him take it to the liquor store or the gas station to purchase his drug of choice. That $20 will be circulating before you can drive down the block.

I disagree because most people are going to spend spend spend. Thats the nature of our nation. Everyone wants to buy buy buy, but if the government is taxing the money you are trying to save, you don't have as much left over to spend on the things you want. Most people will save what they can, then spend the rest. They will also spend more if the have a little confidence that things will get better. It doesn't help when you have the President on TV every 10 freakin minutes spewing doom and gloom over and over and over. That is just being a poor leader.

This is FUNNY! I was just checking the news and saw this story that the Weather Channel Founder blasted Al Gore about Global Warming and how it is based on bad science and is a hoax! haha So fitting for the discussion from earlier! Here is the link.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/weather-channel-founder-blasts-gore-global-warming-campaign/

How ironic the radio station he works for now is K U S I!!! That sounds an awful lot like someone we all know on here... Hmm...

Bad Andy

dutyje:
B of A has gotten $45B from the government, yet we are still cutting 30,000 jobs. I don't think that the bailout money has made a dent in the layoff plans, so the argument that corporate welfare trickles down to the masses holds no water.

A recession is caused by the reduction in circulation of money. In other words, there isn't any less money in the world, it's just moving less quickly. The money is there, it's just not being spent. A reduction in capitol gains tax is foolish because it encourages people to take their money and put it away, rather than spend it. Also, the very nature of "capitol gains" is that you don't pay that tax if you don't already have money. Do we want to reduce taxes on people that have money? Or reduce taxes on people that don't have money? Classic right/left separation there.

ok my understanding of BofA's predicament from a friend that works there...
Fed forces BofA to take money in an early meeting that the fed had with banking heads. Then the fed 'insisted' they buy ML before they failed which forced BofA to borrow more money from the fed.
So now as a tax-paying-stock-holder of BofA (among other financial institutions) does the gov't know where to send my checks if I decide to sell my shares or we actually happen to receive dividends...cause I could really use the money right now!

Also, do we have an over/under for the inflation over the next 3-5 years...10,20,50%?

dutyje:
I So once again, the only responsible thing to do is to begin and end analysis with the majority opinion of the experts.

what happened to listening to all sides? and you wanna talk about monetary motivation on "tree hugers" .... look how much money AL Gore and others like him have made off of global warming.... and look at the potential taxes the Government can collect based on taxes from global warming. The government has a monetary interest in this as well. There is money on both sides. One side collects money that goes to running the country by giving people what they need to be mobile. the other collects money from the private sector and gives it to politicians because of a global warming theory that, conveniently, has no way to be proved/disproved.

dutyje:
Also, why in the world does a "tax cut" have to come in the form of a corporate tax cut? I strongly disagree with that.

because if you take away money via taxes from big business then they have less potential money to invest in improvement or employees. I strongly agree with cutting taxes on big business. If i as an international business man have the choice of going to the US and paying the equivalent of $15/hr to my employees on average and i have a tax rate of 35% OR i can go to another country and pay the same wage but have a 15-20% tax rate, guess where I am going.
I will create those jobs in other countries.

and it may be over stated, but, corporations dont pay taxes, people do. If you raise taxes on a corporation, they will be unwilling to make less profit. the new cost of the tax burden will then be passed on to the people.

dutyje:
B of A has gotten $45B from the government, yet we are still cutting 30,000 jobs. I don't think that the bailout money has made a dent in the layoff plans, so the argument that corporate welfare trickles down to the masses holds no water.

no, handouts arent helping.

PuroFreak:
On an unrelated side note.. PLEASE GOD LET THEM BOOT BLAGO OUT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT UGLY F***ING HAIR ON TV 24/7 ANYMORE!!!!

YES!!!

dutyje:
I made the statement on here earlier that if you want to increase the speed at which money is circulating, give $20 to the guy begging for food. Watch him take it to the liquor store or the gas station to purchase his drug of choice. That $20 will be circulating before you can drive down the block.

i can agree with that argument. Give me $20. I think Liquor just may stimulate me. or sedate me. either way i win.

PuroFreak:
Most people will save what they can, then spend the rest. They will also spend more if the have a little confidence that things will get better. It doesn't help when you have the President on TV every 10 freakin minutes spewing doom and gloom over and over and over. That is just being a poor leader.

FINALLY something i DONT agree with you on. Most people will spend what they make and will save what is left over.

the rest of that quoted statement ill agree with.

this is now post # seven in a row.

this is what happens when you guys debate when im not around.

wait up guys!!

wait for me!!!

First off, Puro, a meteorologist, regardless of his success as a businessman, is qualified (supposedly) to make assessments in current, short-term weather trends, and make predictions with respect to the short-term climate. This is not the same as researching global trends in overall cumulative surface temperature over hundreds of years. Also, given the inability of the average meteorologist to tell me how much warmer or colder it is going to be 5 days from now, I have no confidence in the ability of that meteorologist to tell me how much warmer or colder it will be 100 years from now.

The fed cannot force BofA to make money. We took money because we felt we could use it. BofA required additional funds in order to support the purchase of Merrill, because Merrill's books did not meet our expectations. And we're slashing our dividend anyway. And have you seen our share price lately? Might as well hang onto your shares at this point, unless you're planning to use that money for a light dinner at Taco Bell.

mmmm taco bell.

kuzi16:
PuroFreak:
Most people will save what they can, then spend the rest. They will also spend more if the have a little confidence that things will get better. It doesn't help when you have the President on TV every 10 freakin minutes spewing doom and gloom over and over and over. That is just being a poor leader.
FINALLY something i DONT agree with you on. Most people will spend what they make and will save what is left over.

the rest of that quoted statement ill agree with.

LOL Well your right to a point, but the fact that most peoples retirement and 401k and things like that come out of your check before you ever get it is what I mean by they invest first, then spend what is left over. Then if there is any left over after the spending, they invest more.

dutyje:
First off, Puro, a meteorologist, regardless of his success as a businessman, is qualified (supposedly) to make assessments in current, short-term weather trends, and make predictions with respect to the short-term climate. This is not the same as researching global trends in overall cumulative surface temperature over hundreds of years. Also, given the inability of the average meteorologist to tell me how much warmer or colder it is going to be 5 days from now, I have no confidence in the ability of that meteorologist to tell me how much warmer or colder it will be 100 years from now.

The fed cannot force BofA to make money. We took money because we felt we could use it. BofA required additional funds in order to support the purchase of Merrill, because Merrill's books did not meet our expectations. And we're slashing our dividend anyway. And have you seen our share price lately? Might as well hang onto your shares at this point, unless you're planning to use that money for a light dinner at Taco Bell.

No, I wasn't quoting him as a viable source for evidence against global warming. lol I just thought it was funny that I ran across that right after we were all talking about this, then the radio station was K U S I... Thats strange... if I typed in the radio station letters with no spaces it edited it out like a bad word or something...

Hey Kuz, if you're looking for someone to do the mid-day show on your station drop me a line and I can send ya some air checks of my days as a radio host! haha

totally unrelated....

Duty,
hows the foot doing?

Bad Andy

dutyje:
The fed cannot force BofA to make money. We took money because we felt we could use it. BofA required additional funds in order to support the purchase of Merrill, because Merrill's books did not meet our expectations. And we're slashing our dividend anyway. And have you seen our share price lately? Might as well hang onto your shares at this point, unless you're planning to use that money for a light dinner at Taco Bell.

along the same lines they force you to pay your taxes...intimidation