kapkomet

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) Correct. But only the non-candidate Al Gore. Because, as a non-candidate, he's relatively candid about his opinions. And I think he'd make a good president. If he started to run, I'd probably want someone else who isn't running. I agree with that assessment.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) See Congress is passing things. They just don't get past that next step. Sure Rex.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 07:45 PM) Here is the interesting line of it for me... I am glad that Bush has finally remembered his fiscal conservative side, I just wish he had remembered it oh about seven years ago or so. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...=la-home-center So where did the other 50% of the final bill show up from? But it is damn stupid on this bill. Again, he does the right thing, for the wrong reasons. What a f***ing idiot.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) I think she'd be an adequate President. I'm just sick of merely adequate people. The best person that could win, isn't running IMO. The Goracle, right?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) Obama is the one candidate that can call her on it without risking how it comes off too. Good for him. Exactly.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 04:15 PM) If a nuclear weapon had been used somewhere in the world, it would be well known by everyone. Hell, there are people down the hall from me who'd be measuring the results in the air. I think it is misleading to say the weapons were on the plane, vs. the weapons were actually used. There is a slight semantics issue here. I didn't read that tactical nukes were used, only carried on the plane. Nonetheless, it's pretty bad to mislead like that. I agree - we would know it if a nuclear weapon was used.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) But at what economic cost? Look at the disaster that occurred in Seattle now that they have reached Kyoto level emissions of CO2. They may never fully recover. You kill me.

Wow. And you know what? GOOD WORK! This is what I'm talking about. I do see, however, when clicking on the link that most people think that this is a fake news story. Either way, those pictures posted above tells me all I need to know, and whoever did it did a hell of a good job in making Syria irrelevent in this conversation.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 02:56 AM) Given how bad Hillary's debate performance was this week, a lot of things in this race changed. Since I have not watched a lick of tv, or heard any news, she was that bad, eh? Well, what a pity.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) Question. I was just a little kid in the 70's so I don't know the answer. Did the overwhelming majority of scientists around the globe think that an ice age was on its way? We've linked it a lot. Yes, is the answer, hopefully someone else can catch a couple of the threads where we posted it. I need to get ready for work.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) Look away? The Hsu mess, and the large donations, have been right on page 1 of newspapers and on the main page of CNN. Reaction of people: Really? Cool! Who cares? Now let me go run and vote for her. /does the American Democrat thing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 07:30 PM) Or because of the shear volume it is easier to catch Hillary. Also, based on history are you more likely to look at Hillary or someone else? She makes a better headline. Reporters don't build careers by finding non stories, you don't get headlines with guys who are polling .5% . And yet, Hillarity still will win because everyone will look away.

*crickets*

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) So, U.S. consumers hold approximately $915 billion dollars in revolving debt (credit cards, short term payment plans, short loans, etc.). There are 300 million people in the U.S., but about 120 million households (the appropriate level, IMO, where most credit measures are useful). That means that the average household has about $7600 in revolving debt. And in those instruments, usually, the interest rates are very high. That is scary. Banks are whores. That is all.

The lady basically says she wants to stop the free market process and redistribute their wealth and that's a GOP problem? GMAFB. Some days, you're not even worth talking to.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) From a Survey of Out of Context statements perhaps? Perhaps a visit to snopes.com? http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp Out of context or not, she is saying that she wants to enact socialistic policies, PERIOD.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 03:05 AM) In an ideal system, your argument leads to the classic "Laffer curve", the assumption that we're on the right hand side of which has been the driving force behind Republican economics for 30 years now and which has helped us build something like $8 trillion in debt. Not to just bash though, I think that curve and your argument gives the answer to your question. For every individual, there is a tax rate beyond which they will decide that it is not worth their time to work more hours because too much will go to the government, and in this case, the high taxes will depress the economy, and therefore, increasing beyond that tax rate does in fact do you no good. On the other hand, the other driving force is that if you cut taxes, you will stimulate the economy somewhat, but you will also have a lower rate. These are 2 forces that move in opposing directions, and therefore, it must be possible to find a tax rate that maximizes revenue to the government by balancing those 2 forces. OK, I understand that. But I'm not trying to talk about a curve. I'm talking in theory. I do agree that there is an optimal area at which we can achieve both (of course my thing is if these dolts in Washington would stop spending money like they had it, we wouldn't have this problem, but that is another issue).

QUOTE(NUKE @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 04:12 AM) What I find really amusing is that all these people keep saying we're headed for recession when you have GDP growth approaching 4% for this quarter according to the latest read on it that was out today. It doesn't seem as though the housing problem is hurting the economy as a whole with numbers like that. This is doubly remarkable in the face of the ongoing subprime mortgage mess and sky high energy prices. People have been predicting impending doom for the economy for months now and even though events say we should be slowing down, we're not. But WHY is GDP close to 4%? If growth is so robust, why cut rates?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 01:59 AM) You remind me of my father. You get so angry that Mr 500k is "being squeezed" and want to fight tooth and nail to stop it even though you probably don't make a fraction of that salary and it probably doesn't even affect you. (If it did then I would question why some dude who makes 500k/year is spending countless hours on a message board ) I wish guys like you and my father had that same passion to fight for child health care. Interesting, BS. So let me ask, if you don't mind. What is the incentive for people who are going to get everything they need in a welfare state (which is what you are more or less advocating) to try to earn $500k (or $50K or $100K or $200K or whatever it is...)? Why should people bust their ass, build something that actually turns into money due to the free market society that we live in, just to pay for people to sit on their ass? Why should I have gone back to get my MBA? Why should I have invested in myself to try to earn more to provide for my family and their well being, if the government is going to take care of it for me? Oh, by the way, I get my health insurance and pay for it so my family is taken care of... I don't just decline it so I can go party. Just sayin' - definitely not accusing you or anyone here of ever doing that, but it's an investment in your family that you have to choose to work for. It's not ideal, it's not perfect, but there are systems in place that if people choose to work for it, things can be taken care of instead of things handed to them. In this particular conversation, I'm really not trying to be the typical Kaperbole ™. I'm asking a serious question as to where the line should be drawn and I want to hear your perspective (and others).

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 01:21 AM) From everything I have read over the past few years it is rather high. EDIT: This cost of living calculator has Seattle coming up with a similar standard of living to Chicago and you'll need much more money to maintain your standard of living if moving from Dallas. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp EDIT #2: I guess the economy in Seattle has been crippled now because of this. It's like the Dust Bowl revisited. Edit #2... now there's the point! Seriously, Seattle has always been a high expense city. Portland's another one, but not as high as Seattle. I do think it's applaudable to see the people of the city take this initiative.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 01:11 AM) Seattle is one of the first major U.S. cities to claim it has cut greenhouse-gas emissions enough to meet the targets of the international Kyoto treaty aimed at combating global warming. How high is the standard of living in Seattle?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:44 PM) Sure. But look at the whole money picture, and remember that the amount of money in the system that is more liquid to the economy is a factor inflation as well. What I mean is, look at the housing boom and the cash-outs that occurred from 2002-2006. That was that equity, non-repeating cash you heard me harping about at the time. Even with all that cash being flung around, inflation was controlled. Now, you put a small margin more cash in the whole economy, BUT... with all the foreclosures and bankruptcies, a lot more of it is coming "off the table", if you will. Less money to be spent, less propellant for prices. Know what I mean? Yes, and I agree, only to an extent. IMO you need to not cut the funds rate. You cut the rate between banks so that the money moves easier to cover the fluxes.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 09:19 PM) 150k is not wealthy. And that is what Rangle is talking about. Tax people, find a rate and tax them. But its kind of funny that we have a sliding scale that the more you make, the more we can dig out of you. And then to add a surcharge, like a little bonus to take out of people its sad. Then you eliminate any items like as FICA caps at 97k, and some of the deductable items. Its nothing more than a shake down. I guess being a thief is okay when you dress up like Robin Hood and tell your voters in your district look I stole from the rich, you get free everything. Woo Hoo Socialism. This is why people can't understand Republican policies, and I'm serious about that. People EXPECT our government to redistribute wealth and get "handouts". We're slowly becoming a nanny state for sure. I also do think that in some cases the REAL (not the $150K a year crowd) rich keep getting richer, but the answer shouldn't be to steal money from them. There should be incentive to invest in the things that need invested in.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 06:49 PM) I don't think so. This is a small move to counter the credit tightening, and I think ultimately the credit crunch slowly removing cash from the system will actually mitigate inflationary pressures. As bankruptcies and foreclosures increase, debts will be paid off partially, but because this economy is so debt-heavy, that will actually be something good for the debt levels. Plus decreasing home values will allow some new home buyers into the market. I do have two inflationary concerns other than the flow of money into the system, though: energy and food commodities. While we are making progress away from oil, its very slow going, and oil prices will continue to rise, as well as eventually gas prices. As for food commodities, the corn thing is starting to hit hard, and that will show up in the market basket for real costs to consumers. Its towards something positive, but short term, it hits hard. Diversification into switchgrass and other non-food green stuff to be used for fuel is essential. Any time you put MORE money into the system by reducing rates, with already key inflation indicators starting to look unstable, you run the risk of blowing things right over the top.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 06:15 PM) I'll leave it to you guys to tell me what this one means. I'm telling you (like I said with the last rate cut) that we are about to see the 1970's inflation cycle all over again. OK, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but 5%+ inflation will happen in about 18 months - and will it be a coincidence that Hillarity will have been in office for 3 months?