Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bronco Billy

Members
  • Content Count

    7,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bronco Billy

  1. BTW, before we get into an ideological pissing contest, I'll freely admit that in all probability the GOP would have screwed this up just as badly as the current administration had they been in power. The Federal government has shown a proclivity for sticking its nose into things that its knows very little about and has little to no interest in anything other than imediate attention grabbing impact with literally no thought about long term consequences. It's a primary reason why the country is in the shape its in right now, and it's patently amazing that we as citizens honestly expect the same guys who helped get us smack into the middle of this mess be the ones who are wise enough to bail us out of it. This smacks of the way that Federal government intervention prolonged the Depression for years, yet we just never seem to want to learn from history...
  2. Is it really your position that Obama never referenced the following report in pushing the Stimulus package, and that he never made reference to its documentation that unemployment would not go above 8% if the Stimulus package were enacted, as several GOP Congressmen say it was proposed to them by Obama?It is my position is that referencing a report that was based on lagging data that speculated that the enactment of a stimulus very different from what was enacted would likely prevent unemployment from rising beyond 8% is not even in the same ballpark as swearing or promising that the rate will not go over 8% if his stimulus was enacted. Hell, the unemployment rate was above 8% by the time the bill was passed. But it wasn't when the Stimulus was be touted as the saving grace for the country. Let's make no mistakes - this adminstration badly misread the economic environment, and then they went a step further and proposed that spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars would right the ship when all it did was piss away 3/4 of a trillion dollars and little else.
  3. Is it really your position that Obama never referenced the following report in pushing the Stimulus package, and that he never made reference to its documentation that unemployment would not go above 8% if the Stimulus package were enacted, as several GOP Congressmen say it was proposed to them by Obama?January 9, 2009 "The Job Impact of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" See Figure 1, Page 4.
  4. The actual unemployment numbers, from which we get the unemployment rate, does not factor in the census workers.So when unemployed people get jobs as census takers and are removed from the unemployed roles, they aren't counted as being removed and so they don't affect the rate?I think you may be a bit off on your information here...
  5. Well at least we have moved past blaming Bush. Can't wait til we start blaming Nixon.Nixon? Too easy. I blame Jefferson.:lmao:At least you're honest...
  6. Not sure how unemployment hovering near or above 10% helps any administration, not matter which side of the poltical aisle they reside. It's going to get worse with an influx of college graduates flooding the market unless there are some serious inroads made in production, which looks to be regaining some momentum at a particularly slow pace. When that same administration is simultaneously running up the deficit and throwing tons of money at solutions that aren't materializing, that's a fire storm in the making. The political spinners can make all the hay they want, but the bottom line still remains the abnormally high number of people who are getting paid by the government to look for work, those who feel they are significantly underemployed, and those who have given up looking for work as being hopeless. Those numbers add up to a block of pissed off voters who very well will swing a lot of decisions in November if things don't improve by a very large margin in short order.
  7. Woohoo! Asians kicking ###! Oh yeah? Just wait for that seasonal adjustment.
  8. I'm not seeing a hell of a lot to get excited about. There's a pretty even mix of good news/bad news. Employment rose 162,000 jobs, but the unemployemnt rate held steady at 9.7%. Looks like the increases were predominantly in temps and part time. link Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in March, and the unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs over the month. Employment in federal government also rose, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Employment continued to decline in financial activi- ties and in information. Household Survey Data In March, the number of unemployed persons was little changed at 15.0 million, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent. (See table A-1.) Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.0 per- cent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (26.1 percent), whites (8.8 per- cent), blacks (16.5 percent), and Hispanics (12.6 percent) showed little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) in- creased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-12.) The civilian labor force participation rate (64.9 percent) and the employment- population ratio (58.6 percent) continued to edge up in March. (See table A-1.) The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes re- ferred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased to 9.1 million in March. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.) About 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in March, compared with 2.1 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre- ceding the survey. (See table A-16.) Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in March, up by 309,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they be- lieve no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons margin- ally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre- ceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibili- ties. (See table A-16.)
  9. LinkDamn.Still losing jobs. This is really disheartening, no matter how it is spun about the lessening of job loses. We've heard this mantra since last November that we've hit bottom and we're going to see a rebound, and yet the loses still mount.
  10. Addressing these 3 points:1) using condescending language (Now I see your dilemma)I'm apologize. I did not realize that you were so sensitive, especially seeing the way you treat others. I sincerely hope that you recover from my assault on you.2) attacking the low hanging fruit (Paris Hilton is your model for extended capital...),I admit that I should have been mature enough to not use the example you provided in rebutting your argument. 3) using cliched, surface level arguments that have already been discussed (it's not the government's money)I may be wrong. Can you show me where Paris Hilton's money is in fact not her money but the government's money? Where do you possibly come up with the concept that every amount of money is the government's other than that which they allow us to keep? I think that is your underlying assumption and hence the fatal flaw in most of your arguments.
  11. You are aware that a 3 point support system is considered the most stable, correct? It why we engineers use triangles regularly to design things...
  12. Now I see your dilemma. Paris Hilton is your model for extended capital as it passes through a family. Better the Federal government have the already taxed capital than allowing her to blow it, right? Except of course for that tricky part about the capital already being taxed once before it was passed on and that really tricky part about it not being the government's money...How do you know the money was taxed. If grampa Joe has been sitting on 50,000 shares of GE for the last 60 years, that has never been taxed.It wouldn't be money if it were shares of GE, would it?Do you think the estate tax only includes cash?Thanks for making my point.
  13. I agree with that number. I made the mistake of using an msnbc story from January 29, 2010. You'd think I'd know better...
  14. Now I see your dilemma. Paris Hilton is your model for extended capital as it passes through a family. Better the Federal government have the already taxed capital than allowing her to blow it, right? Except of course for that tricky part about the capital already being taxed once before it was passed on and that really tricky part about it not being the government's money...How do you know the money was taxed. If grampa Joe has been sitting on 50,000 shares of GE for the last 60 years, that has never been taxed.It wouldn't be money if it were shares of GE, would it?
  15. So that lump of money was created through immaculate conception? It wasn't initially earned, making it subject to income tax? Or acquired through sales, making it subject to sales tax? It just was? And therefore the government has a claim on it?
  16. Now I see your dilemma. Paris Hilton is your model for extended capital as it passes through a family. Better the Federal government have the already taxed capital than allowing her to blow it, right? Except of course for that tricky part about the capital already being taxed once before it was passed on and that really tricky part about it not being the government's money...
  17. First off, the economy grew 4.6% last quarter, not 6%. And economists point out that it was likely due to some filling of vastly depleted inventories - which means that growth is not sustainable. Unemployment did fall, which is some sign of life especially when combined with average full time hours worked rising. Production and resale numbers were also up some - which are very good signs. But there are still some serious issues standing that haven't changed significantly - most prominantly the single family foreclosure rate and its effect on construction as well as a looming commercial real estate crisis that would doubly hammer the same sector. Then we have the likely effect of inflation grabbing hold as the government continues to churn out money to pay its debts despite not increasing tax income. It's possible that this will be a relatively stagnant period for the next year and may even start dipping again - but I hope I am wrong.
  18. Imagine if this were done at the corporate level - as soon as a company changes CEOs, the company has to pay 40% of its value to the government. What do you think that would do to private enterprise?Newsflash, CEOs generally don't own the company, they just work for it. Poor analogy.That's valid, but I'd hope that you would get the point. Hoping in vain, by the looks of it.
  19. No, he pays a lower rate because of his position in the company and his ability to remove capital in a manner that precludes high tax rates (capital gains). It's also why he pays himself a salary so relatively low considering his position - it falls just under a threshold for higher taxation on wages. His secretary does not have that option, and is forced to pay on her wages solely.Pretty simple, like I said. And disingenuous of him to make the comparison knowing full well that he is using the tax code to his advantage given his position while his secretary has no such option.I don't understand why you think she can't do this. She's allowed. She can negotiate the method she's paid. I've done it. I've taken jobs before where part of my salary comes in capital rather than wages. I am no millionaire, but this is a pretty common practice I would think. Even in her position there are plenty of things she can do to reduce her gross income and get into a lower tax bracket. We can all use the tax code to our advantage it's just that most people are too lazy to do the leg work.She's not allowed - it's not her company. Let's make this perfectly clear: Buffet does not allow for her to be compensated in that manner, even though it would reduce her tax liability, because HE chooses not to compensate her that way. But he does it for himself in the most advantageous manner. Then he chooses to use that to make some kind of tortured point of comparison between the two.Now are you beginning to see more of his hypocrisy?
  20. Really? So why does the government deserve another share of that money when it was already taxed when it was earned? Why would the earners of the money not have the ultimate say in the disposing of the post-taxed capital that they earned, regardless of whether they are alive or dead? How does the government justify taking another slice of that already taxed capital other than base greed?Imagine if this were done at the corporate level - as soon as a company changes CEOs, the company has to pay 40% of its value to the government. What do you think that would do to private enterprise?
  21. No, he pays a lower rate because of his position in the company and his ability to remove capital in a manner that precludes high tax rates (capital gains). It's also why he pays himself a salary so relatively low considering his position - it falls just under a threshold for higher taxation on wages. His secretary does not have that option, and is forced to pay on her wages solely.Pretty simple, like I said. And disingenuous of him to make the comparison knowing full well that he is using the tax code to his advantage given his position while his secretary has no such option.
  22. I think you'd have a difficult time making that argument to people whose houses are 30% underwater; owe $15,000 in credit cards beyond what they had made; and now find themselves with reduced wages, forced to take inferior employment, or are out of work entirely.The path to this economy going into entire collapse is devaluing the dollar because the government continues to spend excessively - hence being forced to print more money to cover its debts, while simultaneoulsy reducing the amount of devalued capital in every person's pocket. Now you're begging for a widescale panic as well as hyperinflation. Again, how does that stimulate production, enhance sales, and promote job growth?
  23. Nope. You missed the point entirely again. Please reread what I posted rather than me simply posting it again.
  24. Umm, we need to both raise taxes and cut spending to get the budget under control. We're not going to be able to just cut our way out of these problems.I'd disagree. Reducing expendible capital in the private sector isn't going to stimulate production, enhance sales, or promote job growth. Why would you think that it would?
  25. Now you've got a different argument - which I support. Let's simplify the tax code and make it equitable. I'd even surrender equitable for a slightly incrementally progressive tax rate.