I saw in interesting question that was raised, though... if the USA is downgraded to AA+, shouldn't every other debt that somehow relies on the US government get downgraded, just by association? There will be states and municipalities with higher credit ratings than their federal government, and that's functionally impossible, since virtually all of them either rely on direct government funding, or the presence of federal employees to pay local taxes.
Anyway, guess it goes without saying that we're all fucked up.
ETA: saw another interesting point mentioned... there are certain types of insurance and pensions that are only allowed to own AAA-rated assets... they're all going to be forced to sell their US Treasury holdings.
Thank god I didn't make any additional purchases today. I can live with being heavily underwater on some stocks for a long time, but I can't afford to lose all of my liquid savings guessing a bottom.
Agreed. I foolishly took a nibble toward the end yesterday, and I'm sure it's going to cost me, in the short term, though it's not really that much at stake, all things considered.
Fortunately my Roth is all tied up in CD's, so it's not going anywhere. And if interest rates spike due to the debt downgrade, it will be worth my while to take the 3-month interest penalty hit and switch up to better rates.
The CD's aren't about getting a big gain, it's about parking my cash somewhere that is paying better than the sweep rate.
The flip-side is that since the interest is low anyway, paying the penalty to get out of them is basically free.
These are in a brokerage account, not with a bank, so there's not delay to speak of, getting in and out of them.
Good luck with that blockbuster move, but I can't help but cringe. At least you're only risking $2k, I guess.
Thanks for the luck Nathan, I'm definitely going to need it. It's all a gamble when it comes to penny stocks like BLOAQ.
I'm actually a part time teller at a credit union (full time while not in school), and I can't stand it when people open up CD's because of how pathetic the interest rates we offer are. If I had a butt load of money to invest I'd pop it in a high interest rate money market for sure.
I do completely understand when you say it is a safe place to park your cash. I'm glad you have some to invest. Good for you man. I don't have much, just thought I'd give my summer earning a whirl in the pink sheet stocks. *crosses fingers*
Not sure. Everybody is at fault in one way or another.
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
shit, they annoucned this at the end of a friday, what the fuck is gonna happen to the markets on monday? i guess if they had announced this mid week it would have fucked shit up much worse, at least with the weekend there is some time for everything to be absorbed, jesus fucking christ, who knows what the fuck is gonna happen now.......
Not sure. Everybody is at fault in one way or another.
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
This can be done without raising taxes. The economy still needs to bottom. The government has been trying to hold the house of cards up, and I'd rather hold on to my hat and let it fall, clean up and rebuild.
If they raise taxes, they'll never lower them back. Then next time they're in trouble, they'll do the same thing. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government is very efficient with the taxes I give them, and thus I believe it to be a stupid idea to give them more to use inefficiently.
Cut spending, and return responsibility to the people. States need to do it too.
I agree they didn't cut enough. I'd even say we could cut some defense budget. Need to fix some inefficiencies there too, but could fix that and cut spending at the same time without jeopardizing our security. They need a new system if they wanna keep social security. They could save a ton on medicare if they'd only fix the frivolous lawsuit crap. Bring down malpractice insurance, and stop making doctors perform needed tests to cover their asses. Also need to do something about the uninsured weather that be saying "tough luck" or whatever. If you wanna cover them, you gotta bring the cost down, cause neither they nor the government can afford it. If they actually fix the medical system, maybe the uninsured could actually afford insurance.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's about to get interesting.
shit, they annoucned this at the end of a friday, what the fuck is gonna happen to the markets on monday? i guess if they had announced this mid week it would have fucked shit up much worse, at least with the weekend there is some time for everything to be absorbed, jesus fucking christ, who knows what the fuck is gonna happen now.......
This. If there's any silver lining in this, it's that it happened right after market close on a Friday. So people have a whole weekend to digest it rather than panic and bail out on the stock market ASAP.
Not sure. Everybody is at fault in one way or another.
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
This can be done without raising taxes. The economy still needs to bottom. The government has been trying to hold the house of cards up, and I'd rather hold on to my hat and let it fall, clean up and rebuild.
If they raise taxes, they'll never lower them back. Then next time they're in trouble, they'll do the same thing. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government is very efficient with the taxes I give them, and thus I believe it to be a stupid idea to give them more to use inefficiently.
Cut spending, and return responsibility to the people. States need to do it too.
I agree they didn't cut enough. I'd even say we could cut some defense budget. Need to fix some inefficiencies there too, but could fix that and cut spending at the same time without jeopardizing our security. They need a new system if they wanna keep social security. They could save a ton on medicare if they'd only fix the frivolous lawsuit crap. Bring down malpractice insurance, and stop making doctors perform needed tests to cover their asses. Also need to do something about the uninsured weather that be saying "tough luck" or whatever. If you wanna cover them, you gotta bring the cost down, cause neither they nor the government can afford it. If they actually fix the medical system, maybe the uninsured could actually afford insurance.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's about to get interesting.
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
I actually don't mind them letting temporary cuts expire, but they are talking about NEW taxes also which I am against. I don't know how old you are, but look at local sales and property tax over time. Things that started out at 3-6 % years before Bush are now 7-9 %. and will only go higher. what happens when sales tax is 15% and they have a shortfall? no biggie, we'll add %1 to bail it out. the only problem is that people have a finite amount of money. What happens when you wanna buy a $1 candy bar, but it costs you $2.10 with tax?
Really, I'd be all in favor of reforming tax code completely to a flat tax and get rid of all reductions and credits. The transaction tax looks interesting too.
As for the doctor thing, I know quite a few and they may very well know what the problem is with someone, but to be covered by malpractice insurance and to have medicare pick up the bill, they have to rule out any other possibilities. Instead of spending money on the problem, they have to spend money of tests they know will be negative, not to mention was the time and resources on it. Not to mention, doctors have had to do needless "cutting" operations to cover their asses too. Better to take it out and be sure, than be sued later if by some small chance it's the real problem. Doctors go to years more schooling than you and me, and have to be residents for years before they make these kinds of decisions. Why not let them do their jobs?
Yes, I say you might have to let the uninsured die. It's that or everyone dies. The middleclass is being drug down to the uninsured because of the rising cost of health care brought on by the uninsured and malpractice. My healthcare was $120 a month in 2006, it's a touch over $700 a month now. That's just my coverage. If I have to actually use it, it would be more. I'd almost be better off, saying that money for a medical emergency and paying out of my own pocket, or better yet, just going when I get sick and having them do it for free since hell they HAVE to treat me. Why spend $8500 a year if they'll just treat me anyway?
I am a moderate republican, but I would definitely call myself a fiscal republican. It takes a lot of risk and hard work to actually get ahead and become rich. It takes nothing to get a handout. As being someone who has risked a lot to be where I am, I'll be damned if my government is gonna is gonna say. "Congratulations, you made it. Now let us drag you back down so we can help these people who didn't make it." Capitalism has winners and losers, it's up to you which one you're gonna be. Otherwise, where's the motivation to better yourself? Why should I pay that medical premium? Why should I work? I can get unemployment for 2 years, free healthcare, and food stamps, etc, etc. It's a lot easier to sit on my ass. What would I care about taxes if I'm not the one paying them? Who cares about this dude making 2 million a year? who cares if they take %50 of what he makes, he'll still get 1 million a year. never mind the schooling, hard work, and risks he had to take to be in that position. He should give up half of what he makes so lazy asses like me can get it for free.
Udisi - property taxes are at the local level and vary widely across the country. Sales taxes are handled at the state level (sometimes with additional county "options).
Those both go directly to support state education programs and direct-use services like fire/police/transportation. There is not all that much waste at those levels, with the exception of California.
Udisi - property taxes are at the local level and vary widely across the country. Sales taxes are handled at the state level (sometimes with additional county "options).
Those both go directly to support state education programs and direct-use services like fire/police/transportation. There is not all that much waste at those levels, with the exception of California.
I live in Illinois and there is plenty of waste. It's called Chicago. The state has raised these taxes and our school districts are owed money by the state. Illinois is the second most indebted state next to California.
My gas is $3.68 here and I can go 12 miles into Missouri, into a metropolitan area and the gas is $3.33. My property taxes are over 7%, my local sales taxes have climbed to 8.25%.
I think it's quite reasonable for me to be lacking in trust that a government entity will do anything but waste more of my tax dollars if I gave them more.
Local governments are no better than Federal. They are all indebted, and they got killed by the housing bubble. They spent ever dime and then some of property taxes based on inflated home prices, not that things have dropped, they have these huge budget shortfalls, and no way to pay for anything other than issue more debt in the form of municipal bonds. Yeah, they really thought ahead. They really made good use of my taxes.
You're right, I forgot how bad Chicago was, as well. Please don't think that the slime in IL are indicative of how things get done at the local level in the rest of the country.
ETA: also, pissing and moaning about federal level stuff is one thing, since there is quite a bit of inertia at that level. But whining about the local level is pretty lame. At that level, you can actually get things done. Maybe Chicago differs from the rest of the country, in that respect, due to the rampant corruption, so it's too much to overcome. But in most other places in the country, people actually get good things done at the local level, and it looks nothing like what you're raging about.
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates. If you lower overall rates companies will be more likely to hire employees, this increases the taxable base thereby increasing overall revenues and it will bring the unemployment rate down rather quickly. When the Bush tax cuts were implemented tax revenue to the federal goverment actually increased to record levels. People need to remember that the Bush tax cuts were not "just for the rich". They lowered taxes for everyone who actually pays income taxes, about 50% of the country. My household income is far below the $200,000 figure that gets thrown around and my taxes were lowered by the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes on middle class families like mine is not going to help the economy, which is what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
A vast majority of the employed people in the country are employeed by small businesses. I do agree that some tax loopholes need to be closed so that very large corporations like GE actually pay federal corporate taxes, but the overall tax rates need to be lowered to help out the small businesses that are the primary drivers of the economy. Small businesses do not benefit from the loopholes that companies like GE benefit from, so closing those loopholes will not negatively effect the small businesses.
You asked who has benefited the most from the American way of life, the old lady collecting social security or millionaire. I'd say they have both benefited equally since they both get the same police and fire depts, they drive on the same roads, they are protected by the same military, and they are both eligible for the same social security and other entitlement programs. The millionare is not rich because the old lady is poor or vice versa. And thankfully there are millionares who pay a lot in taxes every year so that there are thing like social security, medicare, ect. The government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem pure and simple.
On an actual stock thought today. We're down to where I thought we'd be today(5%), in fact we dipped even further for a min, more than 600 points down. Gonna be an ugly day. I still think we'll settle some were in the 4-5% down. I was hoping to get in a bit tomorrow, but it's looking like we may even go lower. I still think the Dow needs to test 9700.
The S and P was down almost 7& today which is a huge move. Just waiting to see where the institutions start getting back in.
On an actual stock thought today. We're down to where I thought we'd be today(5%), in fact we dipped even further for a min, more than 600 points down. Gonna be an ugly day. I still think we'll settle some were in the 4-5% down. I was hoping to get in a bit tomorrow, but it's looking like we may even go lower. I still think the Dow needs to test 9700.
The S and P was down almost 7& today which is a huge move. Just waiting to see where the institutions start getting back in.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates.
The problem with absolute statements like this, as they related to economics, is that nobody really knows what will happen.
In systems as complex as national and world economies, there are too many variables in play for the same situation to repeat itself. Relatively speaking, the data set for analyzing what actions result in what outcomes is really pretty small.
The entire reason that multiple economic schools of thought exist is because both sides have theories, that neither can make a particularly convincing case for.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates. If you lower overall rates companies will be more likely to hire employees, this increases the taxable base thereby increasing overall revenues and it will bring the unemployment rate down rather quickly. When the Bush tax cuts were implemented tax revenue to the federal goverment actually increased to record levels. People need to remember that the Bush tax cuts were not "just for the rich". They lowered taxes for everyone who actually pays income taxes, about 50% of the country. My household income is far below the $200,000 figure that gets thrown around and my taxes were lowered by the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes on middle class families like mine is not going to help the economy, which is what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
A vast majority of the employed people in the country are employeed by small businesses. I do agree that some tax loopholes need to be closed so that very large corporations like GE actually pay federal corporate taxes, but the overall tax rates need to be lowered to help out the small businesses that are the primary drivers of the economy. Small businesses do not benefit from the loopholes that companies like GE benefit from, so closing those loopholes will not negatively effect the small businesses.
You asked who has benefited the most from the American way of life, the old lady collecting social security or millionaire. I'd say they have both benefited equally since they both get the same police and fire depts, they drive on the same roads, they are protected by the same military, and they are both eligible for the same social security and other entitlement programs. The millionare is not rich because the old lady is poor or vice versa. And thankfully there are millionares who pay a lot in taxes every year so that there are thing like social security, medicare, ect. The government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem pure and simple.
All proposed changes to taxes would not take place until 2013 when the extension expires. That proposal by President Obama has never changed. Taxes have zero effect on hiring, raising or lowering. The only thing that effects. Lowering taxes isn't going to cause a business to hire someone, where is the incentive? Raising taxes isn't going to cut jobs because businesses staff to meet demand. A good business is already operating at optimal staffing levels. The only thing that effects jobs is demand, plain and simple. Not the Republican myth of trickle down economics. The only thing since that's happened since it's been touted is that the wage gap has reached an all time high, businesses are making record profits, and jobs are scarce.
As for the person earlier who said the uninsured should die, I'll let you start that death panel. It sure is funny every single developed nation in the world can afford health care for it's citizens besides the most powerful nation in the world.
The president has said much of the same things that the GOP has said about tax reform, but they ignore it because he's a Liberal. He has proposed cutting the marginal corporate tax rates while closing loopholes. You know what happened, the Tea Party congress members complained that it was raising taxes. I they signed a pledge to a deeply imbeded Washinton insider named Grover Norquist, one of the biggest lobyists in the world in the '90s.
Compromise and working together is the only thing that get the economy going again. The unrest in Washington, not the policies, are what is causing this Wall Street and credit rating mess. They need to quit playing politics and work together. I do however feel, that the Tea Party has no intentions of working together. They want it their way or the highway. The Democrats were willing to compromise. It appeared the GOP was ready to compromise if it wasn't for the fringe. Letting the fringe of either side dictate the policies of the nation is very dangerous, as we are seeing.
Udisi - I live in IL too (not Chicago area). I don't feel our taxes are out of line. Even with the increase in income taxes, our rates are still much lower than every one of our bordering states. As a matter of a fact, if you are retired, you don't pay any income tax at all. Find that in another state that has income taxes. Property taxes in my county are slightly high, but the money is being used for useful things, so I don't complain. Sales tax is similar to what it is in IA. I can't speak for the other border states, I don't live near them.
I know politics are a very touchy subject and can cause tensions between people. If the mods feel this discussion is out of line for the forums, I have no problem stopping the discussion.
^ You are absolutely wrong that taxes have no effect on hiring. Corporate income tax has a much greater impact on business than you would like to believe. The fact is, that the corporate tax rate directly impacts the net profit, which in turn impacts the EPS. If my company misses its EPS it looks at ways to cut costs, and we have had two lay offs in the time that I have been there.
A little bit of critical thinking here could go a long way.
Increase in taxes is an increase in costs, it has to have an impact on the business in some way. Are these percentages that people are bickering over enough to do things like cause layoffs? No, probably not. A good business should have enough employees to meet demand if run in an efficient manner, and so any tax increase should show itself as a minor corresponding increase in costs to the businesses customers to offset the losses to the bottom line. If the increase in costs is large enough to cause a reduction in demand, well then layoffs might come, but if you're laying off in direct response to increased labor costs as opposed to demand and productivity, then you're doing something wrong.
So in short, increased taxes, increases production costs which increases prices which might drop demand which might lead to layoffs, but it's a roundabout way to get there and isn't a direct A to B association like trickle-down folks like to claim. Not that anyone buys trickle-down outside of political circles anyway. It's not serious economics, it's right -vs- left talking point BS and just one more extremely flawed simplistic view of a complicated subject that's leading this country into further division.
^ You are absolutely wrong that taxes have no effect on hiring. Corporate income tax has a much greater impact on business than you would like to believe. The fact is, that the corporate tax rate directly impacts the net profit, which in turn impacts the EPS. If my company misses its EPS it looks at ways to cut costs, and we have had two lay offs in the time that I have been there.
If you can cut employees to cut costs, then why did you need them in the first place? The only reason to keep an extra employee is if they will create a larger profit for you. Businesses don't just hand out jobs because they are nice. Taxes do not play into that equation since businesses are only taxed on profits. Businesses cut jobs to cut costs because they aren't making money or if they believe that they will make more money with less employees. Demand is the driving factor.
Jobber, "Taxes do not play into that equation since businesses are only taxed on profits." Not sure how that equates for you, but a higher tax = lower profit = potentially leading to cuts in jobs. You can say that you don't need employees if you have to cut them due to expenses, but in reality often times someone else is picking up the slack (i.e. salaried employees working much longer hours).
In reference to the post from jidar, I'm not arguing that cutting jobs based on that is good business practice, but I'm saying that it happens. Even if it is a crutch or excuse for executives to use. It is amazing what the impact of missing EPS by even 5 cents in my industry can have on the workforce.
Comments
The initial reaction was positive, but still a lot of time left. Still trying to make sense of it myself yet.
I saw in interesting question that was raised, though... if the USA is downgraded to AA+, shouldn't every other debt that somehow relies on the US government get downgraded, just by association? There will be states and municipalities with higher credit ratings than their federal government, and that's functionally impossible, since virtually all of them either rely on direct government funding, or the presence of federal employees to pay local taxes.
Anyway, guess it goes without saying that we're all fucked up.
ETA: saw another interesting point mentioned... there are certain types of insurance and pensions that are only allowed to own AAA-rated assets... they're all going to be forced to sell their US Treasury holdings.
This is going to get ugly.
Fortunately my Roth is all tied up in CD's, so it's not going anywhere. And if interest rates spike due to the debt downgrade, it will be worth my while to take the 3-month interest penalty hit and switch up to better rates.
I just invested 2 grand in blockbuster. I own over 25,000 stocks in them. If BLOAQ goes up more than 3 cents I'm selling for a $600+ profit.
Yes, I'm aware of the very high risk, but hey, I'm feeling lucky.
The flip-side is that since the interest is low anyway, paying the penalty to get out of them is basically free.
These are in a brokerage account, not with a bank, so there's not delay to speak of, getting in and out of them.
Good luck with that blockbuster move, but I can't help but cringe. At least you're only risking $2k, I guess.
The CD's aren't about getting a big gain, it's about parking my cash somewhere that is paying better than the sweep rate.
The flip-side is that since the interest is low anyway, paying the penalty to get out of them is basically free.
These are in a brokerage account, not with a bank, so there's not delay to speak of, getting in and out of them.
Good luck with that blockbuster move, but I can't help but cringe. At least you're only risking $2k, I guess.
Thanks for the luck Nathan, I'm definitely going to need it. It's all a gamble when it comes to penny stocks like BLOAQ.
I'm actually a part time teller at a credit union (full time while not in school), and I can't stand it when people open up CD's because of how pathetic the interest rates we offer are. If I had a butt load of money to invest I'd pop it in a high interest rate money market for sure.
I do completely understand when you say it is a safe place to park your cash. I'm glad you have some to invest. Good for you man. I don't have much, just thought I'd give my summer earning a whirl in the pink sheet stocks. *crosses fingers*
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
Ya, I agree, a lot of politicians on both sides might be out on their ass. It just boggles my mind how they could let it get this far...
Not sure. Everybody is at fault in one way or another.
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
This can be done without raising taxes. The economy still needs to bottom. The government has been trying to hold the house of cards up, and I'd rather hold on to my hat and let it fall, clean up and rebuild.
If they raise taxes, they'll never lower them back. Then next time they're in trouble, they'll do the same thing. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government is very efficient with the taxes I give them, and thus I believe it to be a stupid idea to give them more to use inefficiently.
Cut spending, and return responsibility to the people. States need to do it too.
I agree they didn't cut enough. I'd even say we could cut some defense budget. Need to fix some inefficiencies there too, but could fix that and cut spending at the same time without jeopardizing our security. They need a new system if they wanna keep social security. They could save a ton on medicare if they'd only fix the frivolous lawsuit crap. Bring down malpractice insurance, and stop making doctors perform needed tests to cover their asses. Also need to do something about the uninsured weather that be saying "tough luck" or whatever. If you wanna cover them, you gotta bring the cost down, cause neither they nor the government can afford it. If they actually fix the medical system, maybe the uninsured could actually afford insurance.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's about to get interesting.
shit, they annoucned this at the end of a friday, what the fuck is gonna happen to the markets on monday? i guess if they had announced this mid week it would have fucked shit up much worse, at least with the weekend there is some time for everything to be absorbed, jesus fucking christ, who knows what the fuck is gonna happen now.......
This. If there's any silver lining in this, it's that it happened right after market close on a Friday. So people have a whole weekend to digest it rather than panic and bail out on the stock market ASAP.
Not sure. Everybody is at fault in one way or another.
The bottom line is that they have to raise taxes to cover some of the spending, no matter what. There is no alternative, because cutting spending is only going to get us part of the way. Though they didn't really cut enough anyway.
I suspect this fiasco just terminated Obama's chances of a second term. To be the guy in office when the shit hits the fan this severely, is not easily forgotten.
Actually , I'd be willing to bet on a greater than 50% turn over of our entire elected body due to this mishap.
This can be done without raising taxes. The economy still needs to bottom. The government has been trying to hold the house of cards up, and I'd rather hold on to my hat and let it fall, clean up and rebuild.
If they raise taxes, they'll never lower them back. Then next time they're in trouble, they'll do the same thing. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government is very efficient with the taxes I give them, and thus I believe it to be a stupid idea to give them more to use inefficiently.
Cut spending, and return responsibility to the people. States need to do it too.
I agree they didn't cut enough. I'd even say we could cut some defense budget. Need to fix some inefficiencies there too, but could fix that and cut spending at the same time without jeopardizing our security. They need a new system if they wanna keep social security. They could save a ton on medicare if they'd only fix the frivolous lawsuit crap. Bring down malpractice insurance, and stop making doctors perform needed tests to cover their asses. Also need to do something about the uninsured weather that be saying "tough luck" or whatever. If you wanna cover them, you gotta bring the cost down, cause neither they nor the government can afford it. If they actually fix the medical system, maybe the uninsured could actually afford insurance.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's about to get interesting.
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
I hope the panic doesn't take it down another 300+
Where is Obama in all of this? Is he hiding as China and Russia openly blast the USA in media outlets?
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
I actually don't mind them letting temporary cuts expire, but they are talking about NEW taxes also which I am against. I don't know how old you are, but look at local sales and property tax over time.
Things that started out at 3-6 % years before Bush are now 7-9 %. and will only go higher. what happens when sales tax is 15% and they have a shortfall? no biggie, we'll add %1 to bail it out. the only problem is that people have a finite amount of money. What happens when you wanna buy a $1 candy bar, but it costs you $2.10 with tax?
Really, I'd be all in favor of reforming tax code completely to a flat tax and get rid of all reductions and credits. The transaction tax looks interesting too.
As for the doctor thing, I know quite a few and they may very well know what the problem is with someone, but to be covered by malpractice insurance and to have medicare pick up the bill, they have to rule out any other possibilities. Instead of spending money on the problem, they have to spend money of tests they know will be negative, not to mention was the time and resources on it. Not to mention, doctors have had to do needless "cutting" operations to cover their asses too. Better to take it out and be sure, than be sued later if by some small chance it's the real problem. Doctors go to years more schooling than you and me, and have to be residents for years before they make these kinds of decisions. Why not let them do their jobs?
Yes, I say you might have to let the uninsured die. It's that or everyone dies. The middleclass is being drug down to the uninsured because of the rising cost of health care brought on by the uninsured and malpractice. My healthcare was $120 a month in 2006, it's a touch over $700 a month now. That's just my coverage. If I have to actually use it, it would be more. I'd almost be better off, saying that money for a medical emergency and paying out of my own pocket, or better yet, just going when I get sick and having them do it for free since hell they HAVE to treat me. Why spend $8500 a year if they'll just treat me anyway?
I am a moderate republican, but I would definitely call myself a fiscal republican. It takes a lot of risk and hard work to actually get ahead and become rich. It takes nothing to get a handout. As being someone who has risked a lot to be where I am, I'll be damned if my government is gonna is gonna say. "Congratulations, you made it. Now let us drag you back down so we can help these people who didn't make it." Capitalism has winners and losers, it's up to you which one you're gonna be. Otherwise, where's the motivation to better yourself? Why should I pay that medical premium? Why should I work? I can get unemployment for 2 years, free healthcare, and food stamps, etc, etc.
It's a lot easier to sit on my ass. What would I care about taxes if I'm not the one paying them? Who cares about this dude making 2 million a year? who cares if they take %50 of what he makes, he'll still get 1 million a year. never mind the schooling, hard work, and risks he had to take to be in that position. He should give up half of what he makes so lazy asses like me can get it for free.
Those both go directly to support state education programs and direct-use services like fire/police/transportation. There is not all that much waste at those levels, with the exception of California.
Udisi - property taxes are at the local level and vary widely across the country. Sales taxes are handled at the state level (sometimes with additional county "options).
Those both go directly to support state education programs and direct-use services like fire/police/transportation. There is not all that much waste at those levels, with the exception of California.
I live in Illinois and there is plenty of waste. It's called Chicago. The state has raised these taxes and our school districts are owed money by the state. Illinois is the second most indebted state next to California.
My gas is $3.68 here and I can go 12 miles into Missouri, into a metropolitan area and the gas is $3.33.
My property taxes are over 7%, my local sales taxes have climbed to 8.25%.
I think it's quite reasonable for me to be lacking in trust that a government entity will do anything but waste more of my tax dollars if I gave them more.
Local governments are no better than Federal. They are all indebted, and they got killed by the housing bubble. They spent ever dime and then some of property taxes based on inflated home prices, not that things have dropped, they have these huge budget shortfalls, and no way to pay for anything other than issue more debt in the form of municipal bonds. Yeah, they really thought ahead. They really made good use of my taxes.
ETA: also, pissing and moaning about federal level stuff is one thing, since there is quite a bit of inertia at that level. But whining about the local level is pretty lame. At that level, you can actually get things done. Maybe Chicago differs from the rest of the country, in that respect, due to the rampant corruption, so it's too much to overcome. But in most other places in the country, people actually get good things done at the local level, and it looks nothing like what you're raging about.
It works both ways with taxes. We are at are current level because then President Bush signed a temporary tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. But, if you try to treat it as such, temporary, and let the tax cut expire as designed, Republicans say you are raising taxes. And the cuts they want? Everything but what affects them. How will some old people eat or get health care without programs like Social Security and Medicare. Some people can't afford the drastic increases in costs that some are proposing for Medicare and there are so many already struggling with Social Security at it's current level. I'd ask you this, who has benefited most from the American way of life, the millionaire or the little old lady received $1,400 a month from Social Security? Who should have to chip in more to keep America going?
I understand the way the minds of many Republican work (not all), they live in a fantasy world. Where everyone who isn't working isn't doing so because they choose to. Never mind the fact that there are 9 people out there for every one job that comes available right now.
You mention doctor's perfroming test to cover their asses. Would you propose that they cut first and ask questions later? You might say, it'd be nice to provide these things for people, but we can't afford it. What is the alternative, let them die? Let them be sick? I'd want you to go tell a cancer patient who can't get insurance that you're sorry but you can't afford to help them while we have corporations raking in record profits and ceo salaries at a bigger discrepancy with the average worker than any time in history.
Please note that I'm not attacking you are anybody in particular (well maybe the Tea Party idiots), but the ideals of the Republican party make no sense to me what so ever. Sure they sometimes sound good on paper, but people are affected when a small minority is hoarding all the money for themselves.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates. If you lower overall rates companies will be more likely to hire employees, this increases the taxable base thereby increasing overall revenues and it will bring the unemployment rate down rather quickly. When the Bush tax cuts were implemented tax revenue to the federal goverment actually increased to record levels. People need to remember that the Bush tax cuts were not "just for the rich". They lowered taxes for everyone who actually pays income taxes, about 50% of the country. My household income is far below the $200,000 figure that gets thrown around and my taxes were lowered by the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes on middle class families like mine is not going to help the economy, which is what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
A vast majority of the employed people in the country are employeed by small businesses. I do agree that some tax loopholes need to be closed so that very large corporations like GE actually pay federal corporate taxes, but the overall tax rates need to be lowered to help out the small businesses that are the primary drivers of the economy. Small businesses do not benefit from the loopholes that companies like GE benefit from, so closing those loopholes will not negatively effect the small businesses.
You asked who has benefited the most from the American way of life, the old lady collecting social security or millionaire. I'd say they have both benefited equally since they both get the same police and fire depts, they drive on the same roads, they are protected by the same military, and they are both eligible for the same social security and other entitlement programs. The millionare is not rich because the old lady is poor or vice versa. And thankfully there are millionares who pay a lot in taxes every year so that there are thing like social security, medicare, ect. The government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem pure and simple.
The S and P was down almost 7& today which is a huge move. Just waiting to see where the institutions start getting back in.
On an actual stock thought today. We're down to where I thought we'd be today(5%), in fact we dipped even further for a min, more than 600 points down. Gonna be an ugly day. I still think we'll settle some were in the 4-5% down. I was hoping to get in a bit tomorrow, but it's looking like we may even go lower. I still think the Dow needs to test 9700.
The S and P was down almost 7& today which is a huge move. Just waiting to see where the institutions start getting back in.
I bet the Dow closes below 10,000 by Thursday.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates.
The problem with absolute statements like this, as they related to economics, is that nobody really knows what will happen.
In systems as complex as national and world economies, there are too many variables in play for the same situation to repeat itself. Relatively speaking, the data set for analyzing what actions result in what outcomes is really pretty small.
The entire reason that multiple economic schools of thought exist is because both sides have theories, that neither can make a particularly convincing case for.
Here's the thing about taxes. If you raise tax rates in an economy like this it will actually decrease revenue to the Federal government. In order to increase tax revenue in this kind of economy you have to lower the overall rates. If you lower overall rates companies will be more likely to hire employees, this increases the taxable base thereby increasing overall revenues and it will bring the unemployment rate down rather quickly. When the Bush tax cuts were implemented tax revenue to the federal goverment actually increased to record levels. People need to remember that the Bush tax cuts were not "just for the rich". They lowered taxes for everyone who actually pays income taxes, about 50% of the country. My household income is far below the $200,000 figure that gets thrown around and my taxes were lowered by the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes on middle class families like mine is not going to help the economy, which is what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
A vast majority of the employed people in the country are employeed by small businesses. I do agree that some tax loopholes need to be closed so that very large corporations like GE actually pay federal corporate taxes, but the overall tax rates need to be lowered to help out the small businesses that are the primary drivers of the economy. Small businesses do not benefit from the loopholes that companies like GE benefit from, so closing those loopholes will not negatively effect the small businesses.
You asked who has benefited the most from the American way of life, the old lady collecting social security or millionaire. I'd say they have both benefited equally since they both get the same police and fire depts, they drive on the same roads, they are protected by the same military, and they are both eligible for the same social security and other entitlement programs. The millionare is not rich because the old lady is poor or vice versa. And thankfully there are millionares who pay a lot in taxes every year so that there are thing like social security, medicare, ect. The government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem pure and simple.
All proposed changes to taxes would not take place until 2013 when the extension expires. That proposal by President Obama has never changed. Taxes have zero effect on hiring, raising or lowering. The only thing that effects. Lowering taxes isn't going to cause a business to hire someone, where is the incentive? Raising taxes isn't going to cut jobs because businesses staff to meet demand. A good business is already operating at optimal staffing levels. The only thing that effects jobs is demand, plain and simple. Not the Republican myth of trickle down economics. The only thing since that's happened since it's been touted is that the wage gap has reached an all time high, businesses are making record profits, and jobs are scarce.
As for the person earlier who said the uninsured should die, I'll let you start that death panel. It sure is funny every single developed nation in the world can afford health care for it's citizens besides the most powerful nation in the world.
The president has said much of the same things that the GOP has said about tax reform, but they ignore it because he's a Liberal. He has proposed cutting the marginal corporate tax rates while closing loopholes. You know what happened, the Tea Party congress members complained that it was raising taxes. I they signed a pledge to a deeply imbeded Washinton insider named Grover Norquist, one of the biggest lobyists in the world in the '90s.
Compromise and working together is the only thing that get the economy going again. The unrest in Washington, not the policies, are what is causing this Wall Street and credit rating mess. They need to quit playing politics and work together. I do however feel, that the Tea Party has no intentions of working together. They want it their way or the highway. The Democrats were willing to compromise. It appeared the GOP was ready to compromise if it wasn't for the fringe. Letting the fringe of either side dictate the policies of the nation is very dangerous, as we are seeing.
Udisi - I live in IL too (not Chicago area). I don't feel our taxes are out of line. Even with the increase in income taxes, our rates are still much lower than every one of our bordering states. As a matter of a fact, if you are retired, you don't pay any income tax at all. Find that in another state that has income taxes. Property taxes in my county are slightly high, but the money is being used for useful things, so I don't complain. Sales tax is similar to what it is in IA. I can't speak for the other border states, I don't live near them.
I know politics are a very touchy subject and can cause tensions between people. If the mods feel this discussion is out of line for the forums, I have no problem stopping the discussion.
Increase in taxes is an increase in costs, it has to have an impact on the business in some way. Are these percentages that people are bickering over enough to do things like cause layoffs? No, probably not. A good business should have enough employees to meet demand if run in an efficient manner, and so any tax increase should show itself as a minor corresponding increase in costs to the businesses customers to offset the losses to the bottom line. If the increase in costs is large enough to cause a reduction in demand, well then layoffs might come, but if you're laying off in direct response to increased labor costs as opposed to demand and productivity, then you're doing something wrong.
So in short, increased taxes, increases production costs which increases prices which might drop demand which might lead to layoffs, but it's a roundabout way to get there and isn't a direct A to B association like trickle-down folks like to claim. Not that anyone buys trickle-down outside of political circles anyway. It's not serious economics, it's right -vs- left talking point BS and just one more extremely flawed simplistic view of a complicated subject that's leading this country into further division.
^ You are absolutely wrong that taxes have no effect on hiring. Corporate income tax has a much greater impact on business than you would like to believe. The fact is, that the corporate tax rate directly impacts the net profit, which in turn impacts the EPS. If my company misses its EPS it looks at ways to cut costs, and we have had two lay offs in the time that I have been there.
If you can cut employees to cut costs, then why did you need them in the first place? The only reason to keep an extra employee is if they will create a larger profit for you. Businesses don't just hand out jobs because they are nice. Taxes do not play into that equation since businesses are only taxed on profits. Businesses cut jobs to cut costs because they aren't making money or if they believe that they will make more money with less employees. Demand is the driving factor.
In reference to the post from jidar, I'm not arguing that cutting jobs based on that is good business practice, but I'm saying that it happens. Even if it is a crutch or excuse for executives to use. It is amazing what the impact of missing EPS by even 5 cents in my industry can have on the workforce.