Economy Predictions - what are yours?

I'm not argueing that all rich are bad. I'm simply giving a realistic view on the nature of the situation. Viking seemed to imply that the rich are creative, philanthropic, and they all earned their money and thus are somehow more of a benefit to society than those not rich. I'm simply calling BS and explaining the reasons for my opinion.

 

While you have some valid points, you also have to take into account a lot more, first the wealthy in this country own about 85% of the wealth of the country.

That wealth should also be used to offset the cost of their war in Iraq, which they aren't paying, they get to enjoy the benefits of huge tax cuts and not pay for it, and the added bonus of profiteering from it, leaving a massive National Debt that will be paid for by the lower classes, not only in the lives of their children, but in less ability to progress up the ladder for them, by budget cost cutting of programs for education and social services.

The two tax rebates don't even make a dent in additional income for lower classes, one was paid back to the government and the second just adds more debt to them, not exactly a bonus to them, the wealthy don't even benefit from the rebate or need it.

I don't begrudge the wealthy, they deserve everything they have, their added tax cuts haven't seemed to make a difference in them moving more and more jobs out of the country, lowering CEO salaries into a more reasonable range, considering that American corporations aren't exactly doing that great, or lowering rising prices for the American lower classes.

Iraq needs to be paid for, the debt is going to strangle the average American future, will it hurt the wealthy in this country, not at all, will it hurt the Average American in grants for school, jobs, social programs, moving up the economic ladder, yes it will, there will be less and less money available for programs.

 

But, there is a ruling class in the US. Upward mobility into that rareified atmosphere is so rare as to be inconsequential. Bill Gates has not made it there. Riches can come and go rapidly for the nouveau rich, but the ruling elite make sure that their riches continue to accrue. (Ever hear of "old money"?) So, wealth is not the issue, upward mobility is a myth, and economics principles do not control the economy.

The US was never supposed to be a class-less society. Right at the outset, not everybody thought the poor should vote, certainly no votes for women, blacks, chinese, or anybody who could be considered a criminal. There was a move to create a royal family during George Washington's tenure if you recall, but it has become more convenient for those who hold true power to remain out of the more plebian spotlight of the popular media. Its not unique to the US certainly, read a history of the Roman Empire.

There have been social experiments in class-less societies (no not that one), but many have been purposely broken up as a result of outside monetary pressures designed to force them to accept the cult of consumerism & international unfair trade.

Dont believe it? turn off your TV and try to get out more.

Rant concluded.

 

Historically, people who try and time the market statistically do poorer than those who are in the market and don't move it. That being said, I've recently sold off 2/3 of my stock heavy portfolio used 1/3 of that to buy commodities and asian etfs. The rest I'll be using to reinvest back into the market over 1.5 years anticipating a down year in the stock market.

 

This rich people poor people thing is dumb. Its like any other group there are good and bad in everyone. Why is everyone arguing about it? Some rich peope are generous and dedicate their time and money to help others that are less fortunate. Others are mean and selficious and step on others to get ahead. Same with poor people, some are lazy and want handouts others are hard working people who are fighting to get ahead.

I don't like that the government gives large tax cuts to the richest people in the country. It is simply seperating the classes. I think the worst thing that happened reagarding this is the tax brackets that Reagan changed. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head but it was something like if you made over $3,000,000 anything over that amount was taxed about 70%. This kept salaries down for CEO's, ball players, etc.. since there was no reason to pay someone over $3,000,000 since most of it would go to the government. After those changes were made salaries skyrocketed and the classes have become more separated.

Back to Iraq and them becoming more stable and democratic. When I picture a new Iraq, I don't picture a country like america. I just picture a stable country like others in the Middle East. One which conducts its business and lives a mostly peaceful life. Not one with a guy who wants to kill Americans. I dont think thats a far-fetched hope.

 

Well lets check out your far fetched hope, historically there has either been one Empire holding Iraq together or a dictator holding it together, for thousands of years. Ok, now what other countries in the Middle East are all nice and wonderful? Only one I can think of is Jordan, the most moderate and logical country in the entire Middle East, every other country, either has hard line leadership or an almost dictatorship.

Iraq is going to align themselves with Iran, don't be fooled, it will be a Shiite powerhouse with oil as its power, oil money that its going to use and need, and where are they going to get this money from oil, yep you guessed it, I hope. Iraq and Iran will use their combined power to raise prices and gather as much money as possible, they now share a powerful religious connection, thanks to the good old USA. Team that up with power struggle between the haves and have nots in Iraq, religious factions, and the US paying for and policing for the Iraq/Iran government, and its a win win for the Shiites.

So whoever comes into power in Iraq, will be governing by religious doctrine, will be part of the wealthy elite, and will be trying to garner as much money as possible from the riches oil will bring in from the Americans, who will pay twice, trice or more, seems like a pretty expensive campaign for the US, for a quite possible pipe dream.

 

Only time will tell which of us is right.

 

True, but the time is already here, Iraq is costing the US its future,, its already cost a Trillion dollars and more, plus the additional debt and interest payments on the National Debt it added, future policing predicted at an additional Two Trillion and more, its an expensive experiment, that even if it were to work, adds nothing to the US. We will want their oil, which they will use against us, since they will want as much as possible for it, and they will gain additional 100's of billions from the US.

So even if we were to get what you believe, its no gain or win for the US, it will be a lot of money for one country, a lot of money that could have been put to much better use protecting the US. Trillions and Trillions of basically US debt, to gain a stable Iraq pipe dream, sure seems like a very very bad use of money and lives.

Time won't tell us anything, a stable Iraq or an Iraq/Iran oil powerhouse creates nothing for the US, it won't push democracy in the Middle East, because we really don't want democracy in the Middle East, if you think Saudi Arabia is ok now, you won't want a Saudi Arabia that is democratic, that whole area needs hard line leaders. And just assuming that it did, far far fetched, a democratic Middle East would be very very dangerous towards the US, you would have a lot more leaders wanting even more money for their oil.

But I'm just being realistic, I don't fall for the pipe dreams too much, I like looking at history and can see ahead, and I'm a fiscal responsible conservative.

But I do have one question, you really think its worth $2, $3 or more TRILLIONS of debt for Iraq to make sure we can pay high prices for gasoline? Keep in mind Al Qaeda, its leadership and terrorists in general, are alive and well, NOT IN IRAQ.

 

It depends on one's perspective. I heard one story that the neocons were out to basically bankrupt the U.S. so that they could force the wholesale elimination of programs like Medicare, FICA, and, and, and. With a $9 trillion and counting balance on the credit card, there isn't room for much else besides interest.

 

Iraq is only one part of the equation. Afgan. is another and securing our country internally is yet another. I think to properly secure the country these types of problems needed to be addressed. We've killled a lot of leaders from Al Queda along with lots of other bad guys. As far as was it worth a trillion or two I'm not sure and neither are you. If a nuclear device or two has been prevented from going off in NYC than yes it was worth it. To say terrorists are alive and well is crazy. There are 2 types of "terrorists". One kind is smart and educated with international connections and deep pockets. The other is some guy living in the desert with a 1st grade education who does not have enough money to raise a goldfish. I believe the later kind has grown in number the former have been killed in large numbers.

 

Come on with the doom and gloom outlook for America. All we need is a fiscal responsible (read non republican) president to reduce costs and increase the tax rate for the wealthest americans. America is not going anywhere and will recover. We have the smartest and hardest working people in the world. Downward trends are part of the natural economic cycle. I've been around long enough to remember a few of these and everyone predicts the end of America each time it happens. Just relax.

 

Before any president can turn things around, the hemorrhaging (blood and financial) otherwise known as Iraq has to stop. At this point, it is looking increasingly like McSame will be POTUS.... So, 4 more years of more of the same for the U. S. of A.

 

You didn't ignore me MJ you had no answer for how the Republicans were going to steal the 2008 election by shutting down the FEC. You still don't have an explanation for it in your weak response. The links you included in your post simply reported on the issue, in a rather left biased way. None even broached the subject as to how the Republicans would win or benefit from the shutdown. In fact it actually hurts their chances as McCain needs a ruling from the FEC to release funds so that he can continue his campaign. None of your sources fully and accurately explained that it was Obama that started the standoff between both sides because he did not like the fact that the Republican nominee Hans von Spakovsky supported Voter ID cards. A factor or issue that would never be ruled on or even considered by the FEC!

Putting aside your crude accusations that I am stupid or afflicted with Alzheimers, which is an insult to anyone affected by this devastating disease and not the least bit funny. I would pray that either of these be true before I would intentionally lie, mislead and obscure the truth as you and EJFB have done in these forums.


Wildkow

p.s. (Reference bolded text in MJ’s post) Anytime you state an opinion as a fact expect it to be challenged. Anytime you won't stand up and support/defend those opinions shows the shallowness of your character and triviality of you convictions.

p.p.s I don't know how to respond to the last sentence (emphasis underline is mine) of your post. Except please, Please, and PLEASE put me on ignore! The tediousness of multiple factual replies to your factless, baseless and frankly deceitful diatribes is wearing me out.

 

Has BDS affected your cognitive functions? You forgot the Subprime Mortgage mess, the mounting National Debt and probably a slew of others.

Demoncraps, HA! I even have to make thier arguements for them! LOL! I am to funny for this forum. ound:

Wildkow

 

It is all in your own personal perspective. If the media talks something down enough, perception becomes reality.

From my own perspective, I couldn't be happier. I retired 2 years ago at the age of 46 after working a civil service job for 26 years. I now collect a state government pension monthly.

I pay my mortgage on time as I have paid all of my mortgages on my 7 or 8 homes I have owned in my lifetime. Not my fault that some folks couldn't or didn't take the time to read what they were signing.

My health insurance is cheap although I had to purchase health insurance for my wife when I retired because it was very expensive for dependants of retirees. Just went on esurance.com and bought my wife Blue Cross Blue Shield for 168 bucks a month. Don't really understand the big health insurance crisis. Again, if the media talks it up enough then people think it is so.

I have no debt except for my house note.

Summing up, I am pretty dang happy. And I love the mileage we are getting on the new Prius. Last tank was 49.6 mpg. As it warms up I am looking forward to getting in the 50s.

 

No, we have killed a lot of people our government told us were Al Qaeda, how many #2's are there, every guy they killed was Al Qaeda's #2 or a high leader in Al Qaeda, yet the CIA says they are just as strong as ever.

The problem with your thinking, is that it is so wrought in ideology its hard to comprehend. I'll go over some logic for you, maybe it will at least make you see a different reality.

You said if it stopped a nuclear bomb going off it was worth it, well you might be right, but here is where it goes wrong, a TRILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money, it could put many more inspectors at our ports, added a whole bunch of Border Patrol officers, it could have added a lot of high tech scanners at airports, could have increased police force investigative units, even trained a lot of translators, much better use of that money to prevent a nuclear weapon. Remember Iraq didn't have a nuclear program after the Gulf War, and was not about to with our heavy surveillance going on at a cost of $1 Billion a month.

Here is what your TRILLION DOLLARS has bought, a fractured Iraq, 10's of thousands of wounded, injured and dead Iraqis and Americans, a very stretched and worn out American military force, an Afghanistan thats not secure, a Taliban on the upsurge, Al Qaeda and its leadership intact.

Now I know whats next, well if we leave Iraq, terrorists will take over, lets break that down, now keep an open mind and think logically not ideology.

In reality, the major muslim terrorist group that hates the US is a Sunni group of non-Iraqis called Al Qaeda. The Sunnis in Iraq only tolerated the foreign Al Qaeda fighters because of their weapons, training and bomb expertise, stuff that might help them regain power in Iraq, the power that the Americans stole from them. Without Americans, Iraqi Sunnis would be battling the Shiites and wouldn't want foreign fighters unless they offered something that would defeat the Shiites.

Now the Shiites wouldn't tolerate foreign fighters fighting against them, and their only friends would be the Iranians, so Shiites would have, if they needed them, which really would be unlikely, they have the wealth and the majority, only the Iranians to fight on their side.

Whats left, the Kurds, who are Sunni by the way, and all they want is their own country and to be left alone, and their enemy is Turkey.

So logically and realistically, where is the terrorist threat to the US if we leave Iraq?

Realistically there MIGHT be a bloodbath between Sunni and Shiites, or they might finally decide that they have their country back and its worth trying to make it work, two possibilities. If its the first possibility, we are just postponing it by staying there longer, and there is a well known problem with long term occupations, the so called liberator soon turns to be the invader that won't leave. If its the second, that won't happen until we give a definite timeline of leaving to the Iraqis, and stick to it.

I know the other rhetoric is that we need to fight them there, so we don't fight them here, the problem with that is, we have no clue who we are fighting in Iraq, freedom fighter, Al Qaeda, Sunni patriot, Shiite patriot, Shiite freedom fighter, pissed off Iraqi, it could be any of those or more, we have no clue in reality. And $12 Billion a week and not knowing who you are fighting or supporting is a major waste of money and lives.

Afghanistan is another story, that should be finished, but the way that one is going, its worse than the bad planning in Iraq.

Now the last thing I will address is your US terrorist attack deal, have you ever heard of the reality of, if someone wants to do something, it will happen, I bet you have. I have no doubt at all that we will be attacked again, some day, some time, it WILL happen, whether it will be a domestic terrorist or a foreign terrorist, I'm pretty sure it will happen, Iraq or not, Afghanistan or not. One thing I'm very sure of, is that money that could have been used to prevent it or prepare for it, would have been wasted on a stupid experiment to raise our fuel prices.

 

I don't think I'm wrong in stating this as fact but . . .

You don't see republicans/neocons/conservatives posting threads on this site titled "America Sucks"

You don't see republicans/neocons/conservatives posting threads on this site [pointing out all that is wrong with America and willfully ignoring the good it has done.] – Barack Obama

You don't see republicans/neocons/conservatives posting threads on this site denigrating peoples beliefs in God or Allah or any religious belief.

You don't see republicans/neocons/conservatives posting threads on this site demeaning and accusing the U.S. Military of mass murder/genocide.

How much better are the Dem's on this site?

Wildkow

 

OMG! EJFB are you just so grossly negligent or misinformed that you think whatever spews out of you piehole is factual and the truth? I have never come across anyone, anywhere and at anytime that has posted so many misstatements, and baseless non-factual accusations as you.

Example:

You said: Our government claims that every terrorist they (military?) kill is either Al Quaida or their #2 guy
The truth: America has never claimed to have killed Al Quaida’s #2 man, Ayman Zawahiri, nor have they made the idiotic claim that they are all AQ. :crazy:

You said: the Korean, Vietnam, Guld War I and II conflicts were started by the neocons.
The truth: The term neoconservative wasn’t coined until sometime in the 60’s. It is indisputable that neocons weren’t in power to start the Korean conflict or Vietnam. President Kennedy (D) first started military assistance in the south in 1961. After JFK was assassinated President Johnson (D) took office. Later the Tolkien Golf incident was used to escalate the conflict. Guld War I was a coalition of 34 countries with the approval of the UN and approved by both political parites in congress. How does that make it a neocon police action? Sheesh. That leaves Golf War II also approved by a coalition of countries and both parties of Congress. These facts are learned in history class and known by school children all over the U.S. Where were you? The world wonders. :dizzy:

You said: so many times I have lost count: Deregulation was started by Reagan and the neocons/republicans.
The truth: Deregulation is and was started back during the Carter Administration when Congress was controlled by the democrats. Almost all of the major deregulation policies, regulations and rules were made or past at that time. I have laid this out to with facts and links to back them up and yet you won't listen and keep repeating the same lies over and over.

I can go on and on and on but suffice to say that you are without a doubt the least credible poster on this site, Congratulations! You're number :first: :cheer2:

Wildkow

 

You know Wildkow I don't agree with some of your posts, some of them would really annoy me. It's hard to get mad at you though because when I'm reading your posts I see the dancing banana out of the corner of my eye. How can you get annoyed with someone when you see a dancing banana? Can you replace the banana with a photo of some kind of scary, bloody creature? I'd appreciate it.