cre8tiff Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Dow bounces up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks bounced Tuesday, a day after falling to nearly 12-year lows, after comments from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that downplayed bank takeover fears helped to spark a big rally. Anyone with any sense is scared chitless about nationalization of the banking system. I would really like to here Obama come out and say it isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Anyone with any sense is scared chitless about nationalization of the banking system. I would really like to here Obama come out and say it isn't going to happen. He'd be stupid to cut off an option at this point. He might need to go back on that - none of us know how this thing is going to play out. And I hafta tell ya, I don't care two hoots about the bank stockholders in all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 He'd be stupid to cut off an option at this point. He might need to go back on that - none of us know how this thing is going to play out. And I hafta tell ya, I don't care two hoots about the bank stockholders in all this. I'm not really concerned with the banks stock holders either. My concern is that if the banks are nationalized that the banks will start using loan interest rates in the same manner that they use taxes, to pander votes, or to punish political opponents. You look at how progressive are tax system is, can't you just see progressive interest rates too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 More good news - finally got the nerve to look at my 401k. Only down 2% on the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I'm not really concerned with the banks stock holders either. My concern is that if the banks are nationalized that the banks will start using loan interest rates in the same manner that they use taxes, to pander votes, or to punish political opponents. You look at how progressive are tax system is, can't you just see progressive interest rates too? You might be right, but even the dumbest, staunchest socialist has gotta see this would result in reduced economic activity, right? Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You might be right, but even the dumbest, staunchest socialist has gotta see this would result in reduced economic activity, right? Right? How are taxes any different than interest on a loan in the way they affect individuals and businesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Hopefully Obama can ease fear and offer optimism tonight. I hear Bobby Jindal's rebuttal tonight is going to very much hard right. We need solutions to problems right now not more of the policies that created this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Hopefully Obama can ease fear and offer optimism tonight. I hear Bobby Jindal's rebuttal tonight is going to very much hard right. We need solutions to problems right now not more of the policies that created this mess. Maybe Jindal can perform an exorcism to drive away some of the country's problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 We need solutions to problems right now not more of the policies that created this mess. I would postulate that this applies equally to people of all political persuasions ... Don't forget to hold those of your own party to the same standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Maybe Jindal can perform an exorcism to drive away some of the country's problems. Jindal needed to exorcize his own speech ... just bury his pres ambitions now ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 More good news - finally got the nerve to look at my 401k. Only down 2% on the year. Cry me a river. Personal Rate of Return from 01/01/2009 to 02/23/2009 is -13.9% Today helped a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing the S&P lose 90% of its value for the next 20 years and then return to 1997 levels in one day but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing the S&P lose 90% of its value for the next 20 years and then return to 1997 levels in one day but that's just me. Give me 24 hours notice of that day to make sure I'm well stocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Give me 24 hours notice of that day to make sure I'm well stocked. hahaha dollar cost averaging Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You might be right, but even the dumbest, staunchest socialist has gotta see this would result in reduced economic activity, right? Right? Clearly bank loans would be subject only to the submitted business plan or the credit of the individual. I don't foresee "political affiliation" being a required box to fill in on a loan application form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Clearly bank loans would be subject only to the submitted business plan or the credit of the individual. I don't foresee "political affiliation" being a required box to fill in on a loan application form. You would think. But then again, I doubt that the founding fathers thought that we would be taxing some individuals at a rate over twice as high as others. What was that they used to say "no taxation without representation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) The day after the speech: 09:45 am : The major indices are trading with losses during the first few minutes of action. The decline is broad-based as only one of the 10 sectors in the S&P 500 is trading in the red. Oh well, there's still time for some bozo with no clue to say it's gonna be alright. You would think. But then again, I doubt that the founding fathers thought that we would be taxing some individuals at a rate over twice as high as others. What was that they used to say "no taxation without representation." Perch, the founding fathers had more intelligence and wisdom in one brain cell than the current and previous administrations combined. Edited February 25, 2009 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 "The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785. Bad socialist founding father, bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 "The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785. Bad socialist founding father, bad. You've never heard me say anything against a property tax, nor will you. And since you like Jefferson: "To preserve our independence, we must not let our politicians load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, the people will be much happier.” Thomas Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 taxing some individuals at a rate over twice as high as others. What was that they used to say "no taxation without representation." The tax you refer to is on the portion above a certain amount ONLY. Please feel free to swap incomes with anyone paying less income tax than you (sheltering strategies aside). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The tax you refer to is on the portion above a certain amount ONLY. Please feel free to swap incomes with anyone paying less income tax than you (sheltering strategies aside). That is a BS argument and you know it. The point is that some are paying a higher portion of their income than others and in most cases getting less in the way of services for what they pay, and get the same amount of representation as those that don't pay at all or are net takers. Do you honestly thing the founding fathers would be on board with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 That is a BS argument and you know it. The point is that some are paying a higher portion of their income than others and in most cases getting less in the way of services for what they pay, and get the same amount of representation as those that don't pay at all or are net takers. Do you honestly thing the founding fathers would be on board with that? Why is it a BS argument? Has anyone ever turned down a pay raise that will be taxable at a higher rate, either partly or wholly? Given the highest rate under discussion is 39%, the other 61% is still worth having, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why is it a BS argument? Has anyone ever turned down a pay raise that will be taxable at a higher rate, either partly or wholly? Given the highest rate under discussion is 39%, the other 61% is still worth having, no? Answer the question do you think the founding fathers would be on board with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.