You new ipad works good...Did you get it at an Apple store?
I have in the past been an Obama supporter, but at this point I am not, and the reason predominately is that he and his administration supported Wall Street and the Banking industry for a longer time than necessary, to the detriment of the rest of the country, or Main Street....I shudder to think what would happen if interest rates were to move up even a little....Talk about a deficit....and a devalued dollar..
As I have always been for the `little` guy and those that have fallen on hard times, giving a bonus to the SS recipients is nothing but small potatoes---as they have been decimated by the Federal Reserve and zero interest rate policy....and the rest of us have been hurt by the Government Agencies not doing their job....and the other agencies that stifle every day life have been very aggressive ....I`m ready for moderation, and a spit congress and presidency...Tony
As I have always been for the `little` guy and those that have fallen on hard times, giving a bonus to the SS recipients is nothing but small potatoes---as they have been decimated by the Federal Reserve and zero interest rate policy.
Tony,
THANK YOU! This Social Security issue is how this whole argument got started. Compared to the $trillions dished out, this possible $250 bonus for those in need is nothing in my opinion. I already said that I am also disappointed on the the lack of leadership by Obama, but to place ALL the blame for the state of the economy (actually getting very slowly better) on this administration is just plain wrong. As I stated above we were very close to a TOTAL economic world wide collapse.
There are a couple of posters above (will not name names) that very much remind me of Rush Limbaugh and I cannot stand that guy.
I have always told you that you are a wonderful human being and I will once again repeat it. BTW, as far as the iPad is concerned, yes I did pick it up at the Apple Store. It is AWESOME. Someone will show me how to copy and paste on it tomorrow at work.
Obama definitely considers me rich, and it sounds like you do as well. Believe it or not, it takes a whole lot of income to live in a decent part of California, pay the ridiculous federal and state taxes, health insurance premiums for an entire family, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, absurd property taxes, food, water, clothing, college tuition (trying to save for it), mortgage payment, and much, much more. Then just hope that something is left over to take a vacation or enjoy a good Christmas. No disrespect, but you honestly do seem to be out-of-touch with what it takes. Certainly Obama has NO IDEA. It takes waaaaay more than $250K to do it.
To be honest with you Tag, yes, I do consider you and just about everybody else here (including yours truly) at least upper middle class and likely wealthy. Our income is way, way, above the average American worker. Think of your situation and then think of a lot of seniors who cannot make ends meet on the Social Security income.
BTW, you, Len, and Tony are definitely NOT in the Rush Limbaugh school of thinking.
As far as I know there was a COLA increase in 2010 only. 2011 now becomes 2 years in a row. So the fact that this news comes out just after that announcement and just before the elections is about as great a circumstantial evidence case of bribery as I have ever seen.
Len there has not been a COLA since 2008. This a direct quote from the Des Moines Register yesterday: "Friday's report from the Labor Department showed that consumer prices are still lower than they were two years ago when the last COLA was awarded."
Now I hope this series of posts stays here because the upcoming elections and the fact that Wall Street has thrown 85% of its money behind Reps and that a part of the recent 8-10% jump in the market, is due to the anticipation of Reps taking control of the House and Senate makes the discussion revelant here. I actually think a better name for this thread is Investing on Wall Street in the current Political and Economic climate. Many of my decisions are made by the latest economic data and a change in political atmosphere.
I'm sure you will get your wish. There is a tidal wave building against incumbents.
If we need a new $50bln roads program and now a $15bln social security program while there are still $220bln in funds unused from the original $800bln stimulus program then how in the world is Obama not wreckless. You've already got copious funds in inventory and you need to add more ?/!
If this is indeed the case then it definitely should be used for good causes.
>Think of your situation and then think of a lot of seniors who cannot make ends meet on the Social Security income.
>BTW, you, Len, and Tony are definitely NOT in the Rush Limbaugh school of thinking.
More hypothesizing about the seniors. When did social security become THE retirement program. aren't people responsible for saving and planning for their retirement. Social Security is only a subsidy. But somehow, some folks. feel it's another entitlement and a full retirement plan at that.
I can look around this area and most social security folk have a retirement from another source. The social security and the subsidized medicare plan for them is just more gravy on the train. Otherwise, they might have to sell that winter place in Florida that they maintain. Or sell 1 of the two cars they keep in the garage here. Who knows about one sitting in the garage in Florida.
Now is there some way to discriminate between those collecting a social security and medicare benefit as gravy on their train and those who have nothing through no fault of their own? Do both deserve extra subsidy? What responsibility do their children and friends and relatives play in responsible helping?
If we want to pass out even more money than the current admin has already wasted in 20 months, I'll take $5000. it will help defray the costs of a year of housing at The Ohio State University. I have worked harder through my life than many of those soc sec recipients being deemed as ultra deserving here by some. Therefore I deserve a $5000 bonus. I promise to vote Democrat if someone can arrange it. I am a registered Democrat (did I hear a jaw drop open?).\
Meanwhile where and how do I invest my 401K and other holdings in this mess the Obama has created and continues.
A lot of people, whether affluent or not, do vote simply based on their own tax bills and nothing else.
I loathe both parties, so I have that balanced anyway. Tax and spend or spend and spend - those are our choices,and they are both destructive. Really, what we are seeing is why a two party system does not work in the long run. One cannot accuse the American direction under the influence of banks and corporations to be sustainable. Barry's "stimulus" has been a sick joke, he has built the highest platform of false promises I can remember - but he did inherit a disaster.
In the long run, nothing will change via the next elections, so long as the same powers remain at the strings.
Our income is way, way, above the average American worker. Think of your situation and then think of a lot of seniors who cannot make ends meet on the Social Security income.
I am fully aware of that, and I help feed the homeless through my church, and I give to many charities as well.
I do not need Obama or any other slick politician deciding to take an extra helping of taxes because he and his constituents refuse to stop wasting the tax revenue I already send at the highest rate.
Instead of stopping the wasteful spending, it is easier to increase taxes. I find that to be beyond unfair... it is corrupt.
Also, it demonstrates a motive to keep a gap between those that are truly wealthy and powerful and those that might otherwise become too succesful... the club doors are closed to newcomers, and the politically powerful folks become less threatened with new blood.
The whole idea that Obama is trying to help the little guy is insane. He is not doing anything of the sort. He should reward business and personal success. That's how I raise my kids. Good grades get rewarded, not punished, and bad grades would not get a handout by stealing some good grades from another student with good grades. It makes more sense to motivate success.
Just think how many jobs would be created by rewarding businesses for their success and growth, instead of taking more and more taxes for the government to create some failed program.
Do you understand this? Lowering taxes and lessening the burden of government is better for the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.
Also, pretending to care about the poor by punishing the upper middle class and then providing breaks to the huge corporations and banks is the dirty deal that proves it all in the end. It proves who our government is really helping out afterall. The poor can't compete with special interests, and they want a guy like me to pay more, while the wealthy get the breaks, handouts, and bonuses, and the government keeps spending wrecklessly.
Again, the answer is simple... stop the wasteful spending and start rewarding success and implement a fair tax policy, such as a flat tax... and stop the lies.
>I do not need Obama or any other slick politician deciding to take an extra helping of taxes
Right on point. Plus 50% of people do not pay taxes. But they get to vote. And they get refunds, rebates, credits, EITC, from other people's tax monies.
This is not right.
I remember back in the 80s I believe when an economist made the point that the voting power had changed from those who were productive and earned and paid taxes in this country to those who did not do anything productive.\
So, on topic, is it time to move out of bond funds with all the talk of increasing tax rates to help the economy in today's news?
As I told you in the past, I am with you on the flat tax idea. I believe the big boys (special interest groups and super rich) will not allow it. They like it this way since some of these groups find all sorts of loop holes to avoid paying taxes.
For me the thing about SS is that in the beginning when I had very little, it was a mandatory thing for me....I actually---along with everyone else---paid a certain sum of dollars, and I might add `needed dollars` for a produce that forced me to not be penniless in my older years....Now that I get the benefit I feel I am entitled to `it` as I paid for it.....At the time I didn`t think all that highly about SS , but it is a good program....I pay the full tax on about eighty five percent of what I get, so it isn`t tax free.....That is a big difference vs you just getting a five thousand dollar gift from the government.....I further bet we were all Democratic in the beginning when we had little....Tony
>Now that I get the benefit I feel I am entitled to `it` as I paid for it.....At the time I didn`t think all that highly about SS
Within the last 10 years there was a study talked about that essentially said that the average person receiving social security received all they had paid into the program in dollars in, for sake of example, 3 years. If interest were accumulated on that paid amount (it's not), they took out all they paid into the program plus interest in 4.5 years. The numbers were surprisingly low in number of years before the people were actually being paid someone else's money. The sense of entitlement because they had paid the dollars in which they were taking out is surprising to me.
I see the sense of entitlement on the part of most who have no financial comprehension that they are being subsidized with someone else's money as the great problem today. While those year number may have increased due to higher amounts being paid in due to higher salaries on the parts of some people, I doubt they are more than a couple of years greater.
Yet as I watch debates between congressional candidates on the internet around the country, I see social security and promising even more deficit monies as ways to buy votes as a problem neither of the two parties will wish to face.
Fintail is right.
They both are tax and spend to buy votes. Watching some debates this week and seeing some really rude and nasty candidates makes me more concerned about the future. Coons in Delaware. Conway in Kentucky against Rand Paul. Reid vs Angle in Nevada. They will say and do anything to keep or gain their entitled position as congressperson.
My son went to the rally at The Ohio State University this evening with lots of local politicians in Ohio (most were nuts) and finally Obama. My son left early. He said he was boring, saying nothing. He was just politicking. My son estimated the crowd at 15,000. A news media said 35,000, perhaps CNN; maybe Columbus TV. Overestimating the crowds to build the excitement of the turnout to see the leaders.
My son was looking for the buses that brought in all the union folks. He said they were placed behind buildings to be out of sight of cameras. He found more buses parked elsewhere as he headed for Chipotles to eat before returning to the dorm.
As for what to do with some investments, I am concerned if the Republicans don't gain a large enough majority to make a change. What will happen if more spending with no bounds is going to occur. A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there. It all adds up to real money.
And I realize that fintail is right. Even if Republicans gain substantially, they will still do the same things. The only change will be the blocking by the other party and prez will slow the spinning out of control, for a while. The two parties are somewhat the same. Der untershied is only slight.
I have no issue with the soc sec $250. My issue is why does it have to be an additional $15bln deal instead of using some of the $220bln of unused stimulus money. That is where I hgave a huge problem and that additional $15bln along with last weeks $50bln tells me that this admn has no intention of shutting down the faucet anytime soon. Would any business create another platform of money to spend when there's so much surplus left from past programs. Obama says in that mag article that he wants to change his tax and spend (it actually should be called spend and tax) image and then he goes right out and does it some more. I no longer trust him or believe anything he says, nor am I even sure he's a good guy anymore. I thought that before but no longer. He has an agenda and I think if we all see it we are going to hate it in the end, Charlie included. I come from poor roots so the last thing I'm against is helping them out. But helping them to the point that they have no incentive is crazy and that's where Obama is headed IMO.
BTW - Charlie - don't take any of this this personal. Geez - you're our buddy and greatly respected. We are talking about things that we see that make no sense economically and worry that some of it will put us in a tailspin.
Also I don't want Rep-Rep either. The best moderate policy that benefits everyone happens when the two sides have to negotiate. Far left or far right are no-no's for me.
Some type of new movement is needed, and I know this will draw the ire of some, but the tea party aint it.
I have no workable solutions, as I don't see change coming without sharp upheaval, and the powers that be will do anything to prevent that. The expansion of pointless hand to mouth social welfare along with the dumping of Chinese goods on the market to keep the sheeple satiated are ultimate proofs - commit suicide to keep people docile today. I just know the system we have today is not workable no matter who is in Congress or the oval office.
Who ever thought we'd look back at the Clinton years as a time of cooperation?
People making over $250K are in the top 5 percent of income earners. By almost any definition, that them rich. How one spends their money doesn't change that.
Whether it's of merit or not, I can't say. But it's hard to imagine this check to seniors not being about politics. Tax rebate bribery almost always wins votes, whether it's economically sensible or not. It worked for Bush, and it may ease the Democrats' bleeding in this election as well.
I'm inclined not to blame politicians for an endless array of bad policy. Rather, the fault lies with an idiot electorate that expects expensive things for free. Of course, nothing is actually free. The expensive college tuition you pay is nice example. As states lose tax revenue and cut back their funding of public universities, tuition rates rise accordingly. So, a chunk of the tax burden gets shifted onto teenagers. What a great idea! Who will even be able to afford college if its rates continue inflating at current rates for another ten years? So much for that economic stepladder America is known for.
People making over $250K are in the top 5 percent of income earners. By almost any definition, that them rich. How one spends their money doesn't change that.
I obviously agree with you 100%. In fact, those making more than $250K per year are probably in the top 2 or 3%.
Whether it's of merit or not, I can't say. But it's hard to imagine this check to seniors not being about politics. Tax rebate bribery almost always wins votes, whether it's economically sensible or not. It worked for Bush, and it may ease the Democrats' bleeding in this election as well.
My main points that started this whole debate were the following: a) this issue will come to a vote after the election, b) $250 will help a lot of the seniors in need, c) in the scheme of things, this $15 billion package (if passed) is "peanuts" compared to the $trillions going elsewhere., d) there has been no COLA since 2008, e) the blame for EVERYTHING that the folks here don't like is placed on this administration.
I am not that naive as to not realize that of course the Democrats are trying to win votes in November, but as you stated, the other side does the exact same thing. BTW, it is great to see you here. I don't think you have ever posted before. You seem to be a very reasonable person. Welcome! Please feel free to give us your opinions as often as you can.
I have no issue with the soc sec $250. My issue is why does it have to be an additional $15bln deal instead of using some of the $220bln of unused stimulus money. That is where I hgave a huge problem and that additional $15bln along with last weeks $50bln
Now we are on the same page. I would also like to know why they are not taking the money from the unused stimulus. I hope there is a good, logical reason.
BTW - Charlie - don't take any of this this personal. Geez - you're our buddy and greatly respected. We are talking about things that we see that make no sense economically and worry that some of it will put us in a tailspin.
I DO NOT take any of this personally. I realize that everyone here is expressing their opinion even though I disagree with some more so than with some others. I just want people here to realize that we are SO MUCH better off (at least financially) than about 95% of the American wage earners. We should count our blessings and have some compassion for those that have nothing and through no fault of their own. THIS is the reason I have been leaning toward the Democratic side. Democratic administrations are suppose to do more than the Republicans to help the common man. At least that is the way it is suppose to be. Obviously, there is corruption and fraud on both sides and I despise that. Probably fintail is right. We need a total change and I don't mean the Tea Party either. I cannot stand the Tea Party. We need a bunch of Abraham Lincolns' running the government.
...those making more than $250K per year are probably in the top 2 or 3%.
And they should be rewarded. But instead they are punished.
When my son achieves grades that are in the top 2 -3 %, I reward him.
Based upon so many of your posts, it truly seems that you believe some of his grades should be taken away and given to some students whose grades aren't as good.
Based upon so many of your posts, it truly seems that you believe some of his grades should be taken away and given to some students whose grades aren't as good.
Do you understand the analogy?
Do you understand my philosophy? Read my post above. I feel obligated to help those that have nothing. I think government intervention is the best way to accomplish this. Obviously, I want this to be done with no corruption or fraud. There is no way that we can help all these people privately. I don't mind sacrificing some of my income to achieve this goal.
. . .those that have nothing and through no fault of their own.
I certainly have no issue with the government helping that category of people. However, the government is the least efficient way to do anything, and many people will posit that the "no fault of their own" recipients are a far smaller group than the crowd who have learned to game the system.
I think government intervention is the best way to accomplish this.
Agree, with concrete parameters and conditions to reduce the absurd levels of fraud, as well as provide incentives to get those folks on their feet and become productive, instead of keeping them dependent.
Obviously, I want this to be done with no corruption or fraud. There is no way that we can help all these people privately.
Agree.
I don't mind sacrificing some of my income to achieve this goal.
I don't mind either, and I already do so in the form of income taxes, as well as very generous charity in the form of cash, material goods, and my time giving away meals to feed the homeless. In addition, I have a long list of charities to which I make donations every year.
The problem here, Charlie, is that you and I already give more than our fair share. It isn't our fault it is wasted.
If you had the choice, would you rather see A). 2% of the population making $250K, and paying a 39% level of income taxes, or . 4% of the population making $250K, and paying a 30% level of income taxes?
The answer is B, of course! It actually brings more revenue to the treasury with lower taxes. So... it clearly makes more sense to create government policies that offer incentives and rewards for success. This is elementary.
In businesses, a saleman that achieves a greater numbers of sales is generally rewarded with bonuses, not some sort of tax that would give money to those salesmen that didn't sell as much products. Think about the results if competition and rewards for productivity were to be reversed. That's EXACTLY what happens when you suggest that the more money you make, the more you should be taxed!
Of course, we need programs to help those that are needy. But we can have our cake and eat it too! We can help the needy AND reward success, which would lead us to greater productivity, which would lead us to MORE revenue going to the treasury.
“When my son achieves grades that are in the top 2 -3 %, I reward him. Based upon so many of your posts, it truly seems that you believe some of his grades should be taken away and given to some students whose grades aren't as good.”
That’s a bogus analogy tagman. It suggests that you don’t get rewarded for making money. There’s only one instance of tax rates that were high enough to manage that. At one point, I think Sweden actually had a 90 percent rate! It was enough to incentivize people to avoid making money to stay under that bracket. Some of you guys seem to think that tax rates under the Reagan Administration were high enough to have that effect, which is ludicrous.
If you want to stick with the school analogy, I’ll set it up in a different way. Since you pay more taxes, your kids should have proportionately more time with publicly funded teachers, and better access to books. Parents of poor kids don’t pay taxes, so they don’t get to see the teacher at all. That’s fair right?
“If you had the choice, would you rather see A). 2% of the population making $250K, and paying a 39% level of income taxes, or . 4% of the population making $250K, and paying a 30% level of income taxes?”
The question is what’s going on with the other 98 and 96 percent in those two scenarios? While this isn’t necessarily a zero sum issue, in practice, you can’t double the number of “rich” people without compromising the middle class. That’s actually what’s been happening since 1972, when class discrepancies began growing in the US. The percentage of rich people has grown quite a bit, but so has that of the poor.
and many people will posit that the "no fault of their own" recipients are a far smaller group than the crowd who have learned to game the system.
There is NO doubt that there are quite a few that take advantage of the system. But, that is inescapable. I would rather err on the side of helping some that don't deserve it rather than helping no one at all.
How come `72`.....I think it has been happening a lot longer than that......I`m not so sure about all these government statistics, as they seem to be and have been manipulated all along...
From my experience with many people in a variety of earning categories, they all are well adjusted no matter what the income is, other than the `rich` who are constantly feeling left behind ...I have spent some time with `street people` or those that are considered homeless, and although I am sure what I found out is not inclusive of all, but the ones I spoke with at length, it was a choice, and they were a happy lot, although it sure didn`t look it on the surface...Funny how that was....and I am still not sure about it, but it is the truth...
Our board here is certainly a diverse grope of opinionated souls, and all have their ` heart` in the right place.......and Charlie is doing so well in the stock market he just wants to share the wealth...I don`t blame him `smile` Tony
"...It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
There seems to be an aura here that trickle down policy somehow works I think reality proves the opposite, by examining the exploding socio-economic gap...the endless babble of Ayn Rand be darned.
The rich should not be completely soaked, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with those who benefit most from the maintenance of the status quo to pay the most to maintain it. The American wealthy are not abused.
>There is NO doubt that there are quite a few that take advantage of the system.
That's the BIG problem. There is an industry in how to get OPM.
> But, that is inescapable.
That is not the case. It can be handled, if politicians and bureaucrats want to stop the abuse. One factor would be to publish the name, address, and amount of subsidy given to each recipient. Then follow up on the reports of "she has a husband living with her so why is she getting welfare?" Or she died two years ago, so why are you paying checks for here?
George Bush had the right idea about having churches and other more local groups be involved in helping the truly needy in the community. Local controls mean that abuse is going to be noted when it's churches and groups instead of politicians handing out taxpayers' money like candy in return for votes. That happened here: google raleigh trammel and dayton and sclc and county funds and feldman, not all at one time of course, to see what happens to county money handed out for people to use for their own benefit rather than actually helping feed the needy as they claimed.
This used to be a good thread. I was hoping to read about stock picks. IBM, VMware, Ford, Apple?
Anyway, sure the "rich" should pay more taxes than the not "rich". And they do in so many ways.
Okay, what is rich? Anyone who has and earns more than me of course;) Tax the @#$% out of them. That seems to be the populist view.
While the 250k number being thrown around is probably around the top 2-3% particularly when you consider it taxable income. I still don't find that level being rich. Granted it certainly depends on where you live too. $250k/yr goes a hell of a lot further here in Illinois than it does in SoCal. But we have to pay more for anti depressants to survive the winter;)
That is not the case. It can be handled, if politicians and bureaucrats want to stop the abuse. One factor would be to publish the name, address, and amount of subsidy given to each recipient. Then follow up on the reports of "she has a husband living with her so why is she getting welfare?" Or she died two years ago, so why are you paying checks for here?
Wouldn't this be very costly? I am all for anything that eliminates cheating. As far as churches or local groups taking care of the needy, I very much doubt this would work on a national scale.
BTW: I am not even CLOSE to the "rich" handle this regime is tossing about...I think that our society should help those that cannot help themselves, but there are far too many that use the safety net as a hammock. "If you will not work, neither shall you eat"...
“You have missed the whole point, as so many politicians always do. Whatever the goal or objective is, it is smarter to reward it, than to punish it. I believe making money is so good for the economy and for adding revenue to the government, that it should be rewarded. It is amazing to me that some will argue this perspective.”
The notion that cutting taxes can boost government revenue comes from the Laffer curve concept. But to claim that even a 40 percent top rate is high enough to diminish tax revenue is completely unsupported by evidence. Rather, it’s a myth conservative economists have been spouting since the Reagan years.
Outside of that claim, what you’ve said is sound TM. I’d be more than happy to turn over the government to those of your persuasion half of the time. I’ve heard a lot of great economic ideas from National Review type conservatives. But those people don’t win elections.
Both parties know how to win them, but are poorly equipped to govern. I’m probably as annoyed with what the Dems have been doing as you may have been during the Bush years. Good politics seldom correlate with good policy. I’m inclined to fault the electorate for that.
According to reality, Find me a developed first world nation that treats the rich better than the US.
The social safety net is a devils den of abuse and lies, but do away with it, and the rich will be dragged out of their beds at night...which is why it exists to begin with.
This is more of something for the politics thread...I want more information about the depreciating dollar and if the next 30+ years of 401K contributions I'll making have any point.
I'm sure all of you have heard by now that the new report was a little disappointing to the overnight market. I hope to buy more shares tomorrow morning at hopefully near $300 a share. I do believe that (as a few have already mentioned) this stock is headed to AT LEAST $400.
My buy order is already in, guys. Might as well make back the 6% it's down. Earnings were thru the roof and at some point folks will realize the selloff reasoning attributable to Ithe IPAD is probably because buyers are waiting for Tag's generation II IPAD. My guess is it closes tomorrow around 307-309. GP marginn was down and I have a feeling that was tied into product building and the upcoming surprises that Steve Jobs mentioned. Also, let me think about my bookeeping strategy off that earnings report here. I'd expense what I should be capitalizing into the Balance Sheet, make myself look conservative to the auditors,and have them reverse my expenses out of cost of goods and into capitalized expenses so that I can re-distribute some profits into the next quarter. You buy auditor goodwill for conservative accounting and you get an extra windfall the next go round.
My buy order is already in, guys. Might as well make back the 6% it's down. Earnings were thru the roof and at some point folks will realize the selloff reasoning attributable to Ithe IPAD is probably because buyers are waiting for Tag's generation II IPAD.
I am placing my order at 6:00 AM Central. What a poor excuse for a selloff. By the way, I am using the iPad for this reply and I think I figured out how to copy and paste. Yipeee!!
Well I missed buying AAPL so far. My broker had to first sell a stock to get some extra money to buy AAPL. We priced AAPL at $302.50 and missed it to this point. I hope it comes back to my price level so I can be long more shares of this awesome stock. The market in general is weak this morning mostly due to the Chinese raising interest rates.
Apple opened at $303.40. I got 34 shares at $303.49... only 9 cents more. It's already hit a high of $313.77 this morning.
I am very OK with that. As soon as the market gets past the China factor, we'll be in even better shape.
TM
Edit: I am not waiting until November to increase my holdings of equities. I just called my broker and asked him to make those purchases this morning, to take advantage of this market dip due to the China factor... which is a rare event. The better story is great earnings reports. Just letting you all know. Today might be a good day to buy stocks, and I just bought quite a bit more.
Comments
You new ipad works good...Did you get it at an Apple store?
I have in the past been an Obama supporter, but at this point I am not, and the reason predominately is that he and his administration supported Wall Street and the Banking industry for a longer time than necessary, to the detriment of the rest of the country, or Main Street....I shudder to think what would happen if interest rates were to move up even a little....Talk about a deficit....and a devalued dollar..
As I have always been for the `little` guy and those that have fallen on hard times, giving a bonus to the SS recipients is nothing but small potatoes---as they have been decimated by the Federal Reserve and zero interest rate policy....and the rest of us have been hurt by the Government Agencies not doing their job....and the other agencies that stifle every day life have been very aggressive ....I`m ready for moderation, and a spit congress and presidency...Tony
Tony,
THANK YOU! This Social Security issue is how this whole argument got started. Compared to the $trillions dished out, this possible $250 bonus for those in need is nothing in my opinion. I already said that I am also disappointed on the the lack of leadership by Obama, but to place ALL the blame for the state of the economy (actually getting very slowly better) on this administration is just plain wrong. As I stated above we were very close to a TOTAL economic world wide collapse.
There are a couple of posters above (will not name names) that very much remind me of Rush Limbaugh and I cannot stand that guy.
I have always told you that you are a wonderful human being and I will once again repeat it. BTW, as far as the iPad is concerned, yes I did pick it up at the Apple Store. It is AWESOME. Someone will show me how to copy and paste on it tomorrow at work.
To be honest with you Tag, yes, I do consider you and just about everybody else here (including yours truly) at least upper middle class and likely wealthy. Our income is way, way, above the average American worker. Think of your situation and then think of a lot of seniors who cannot make ends meet on the Social Security income.
BTW, you, Len, and Tony are definitely NOT in the Rush Limbaugh school of thinking.
Len there has not been a COLA since 2008. This a direct quote from the Des Moines Register yesterday: "Friday's report from the Labor Department showed that consumer prices are still lower than they were two years ago when the last COLA was awarded."
Now I hope this series of posts stays here because the upcoming elections and the fact that Wall Street has thrown 85% of its money behind Reps and that a part of the recent 8-10% jump in the market, is due to the anticipation of Reps taking control of the House and Senate makes the discussion revelant here. I actually think a better name for this thread is Investing on Wall Street in the current Political and Economic climate. Many of my decisions are made by the latest economic data and a change in political atmosphere.
I'm sure you will get your wish. There is a tidal wave building against incumbents.
If we need a new $50bln roads program and now a $15bln social security program while there are still $220bln in funds unused from the original $800bln stimulus program then how in the world is Obama not wreckless. You've already got copious funds in inventory and you need to add more ?/!
If this is indeed the case then it definitely should be used for good causes.
Again, I'd suggest not talking about other posters about whom you know _nothing_.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
>BTW, you, Len, and Tony are definitely NOT in the Rush Limbaugh school of thinking.
More hypothesizing about the seniors. When did social security become THE retirement program. aren't people responsible for saving and planning for their retirement. Social Security is only a subsidy. But somehow, some folks. feel it's another entitlement and a full retirement plan at that.
I can look around this area and most social security folk have a retirement from another source. The social security and the subsidized medicare plan for them is just more gravy on the train. Otherwise, they might have to sell that winter place in Florida that they maintain. Or sell 1 of the two cars they keep in the garage here. Who knows about one sitting in the garage in Florida.
Now is there some way to discriminate between those collecting a social security and medicare benefit as gravy on their train and those who have nothing through no fault of their own? Do both deserve extra subsidy? What responsibility do their children and friends and relatives play in responsible helping?
If we want to pass out even more money than the current admin has already wasted in 20 months, I'll take $5000. it will help defray the costs of a year of housing at The Ohio State University. I have worked harder through my life than many of those soc sec recipients being deemed as ultra deserving here by some. Therefore I deserve a $5000 bonus. I promise to vote Democrat if someone can arrange it. I am a registered Democrat (did I hear a jaw drop open?).\
Meanwhile where and how do I invest my 401K and other holdings in this mess the Obama has created and continues.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I loathe both parties, so I have that balanced anyway. Tax and spend or spend and spend - those are our choices,and they are both destructive. Really, what we are seeing is why a two party system does not work in the long run. One cannot accuse the American direction under the influence of banks and corporations to be sustainable. Barry's "stimulus" has been a sick joke, he has built the highest platform of false promises I can remember - but he did inherit a disaster.
In the long run, nothing will change via the next elections, so long as the same powers remain at the strings.
I am fully aware of that, and I help feed the homeless through my church, and I give to many charities as well.
I do not need Obama or any other slick politician deciding to take an extra helping of taxes because he and his constituents refuse to stop wasting the tax revenue I already send at the highest rate.
Instead of stopping the wasteful spending, it is easier to increase taxes. I find that to be beyond unfair... it is corrupt.
Also, it demonstrates a motive to keep a gap between those that are truly wealthy and powerful and those that might otherwise become too succesful... the club doors are closed to newcomers, and the politically powerful folks become less threatened with new blood.
The whole idea that Obama is trying to help the little guy is insane. He is not doing anything of the sort. He should reward business and personal success. That's how I raise my kids. Good grades get rewarded, not punished, and bad grades would not get a handout by stealing some good grades from another student with good grades. It makes more sense to motivate success.
Just think how many jobs would be created by rewarding businesses for their success and growth, instead of taking more and more taxes for the government to create some failed program.
Do you understand this? Lowering taxes and lessening the burden of government is better for the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.
Also, pretending to care about the poor by punishing the upper middle class and then providing breaks to the huge corporations and banks is the dirty deal that proves it all in the end. It proves who our government is really helping out afterall. The poor can't compete with special interests, and they want a guy like me to pay more, while the wealthy get the breaks, handouts, and bonuses, and the government keeps spending wrecklessly.
Again, the answer is simple... stop the wasteful spending and start rewarding success and implement a fair tax policy, such as a flat tax... and stop the lies.
TM
Right on point. Plus 50% of people do not pay taxes. But they get to vote. And they get refunds, rebates, credits, EITC, from other people's tax monies.
This is not right.
I remember back in the 80s I believe when an economist made the point that the voting power had changed from those who were productive and earned and paid taxes in this country to those who did not do anything productive.\
So, on topic, is it time to move out of bond funds with all the talk of increasing tax rates to help the economy in today's news?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Within the last 10 years there was a study talked about that essentially said that the average person receiving social security received all they had paid into the program in dollars in, for sake of example, 3 years. If interest were accumulated on that paid amount (it's not), they took out all they paid into the program plus interest in 4.5 years. The numbers were surprisingly low in number of years before the people were actually being paid someone else's money. The sense of entitlement because they had paid the dollars in which they were taking out is surprising to me.
I see the sense of entitlement on the part of most who have no financial comprehension that they are being subsidized with someone else's money as the great problem today. While those year number may have increased due to higher amounts being paid in due to higher salaries on the parts of some people, I doubt they are more than a couple of years greater.
Yet as I watch debates between congressional candidates on the internet around the country, I see social security and promising even more deficit monies as ways to buy votes as a problem neither of the two parties will wish to face.
Fintail is right.
They both are tax and spend to buy votes. Watching some debates this week and seeing some really rude and nasty candidates makes me more concerned about the future. Coons in Delaware. Conway in Kentucky against Rand Paul. Reid vs Angle in Nevada. They will say and do anything to keep or gain their entitled position as congressperson.
My son went to the rally at The Ohio State University this evening with lots of local politicians in Ohio (most were nuts) and finally Obama. My son left early. He said he was boring, saying nothing. He was just politicking. My son estimated the crowd at 15,000. A news media said 35,000, perhaps CNN; maybe Columbus TV. Overestimating the crowds to build the excitement of the turnout to see the leaders.
My son was looking for the buses that brought in all the union folks. He said they were placed behind buildings to be out of sight of cameras. He found more buses parked elsewhere as he headed for Chipotles to eat before returning to the dorm.
As for what to do with some investments, I am concerned if the Republicans don't gain a large enough majority to make a change. What will happen if more spending with no bounds is going to occur. A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there. It all adds up to real money.
And I realize that fintail is right. Even if Republicans gain substantially, they will still do the same things. The only change will be the blocking by the other party and prez will slow the spinning out of control, for a while. The two parties are somewhat the same. Der untershied is only slight.
What is needed, fintail?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
BTW - Charlie - don't take any of this this personal. Geez - you're our buddy and greatly respected. We are talking about things that we see that make no sense economically and worry that some of it will put us in a tailspin.
Also I don't want Rep-Rep either. The best moderate policy that benefits everyone happens when the two sides have to negotiate. Far left or far right are no-no's for me.
I have no workable solutions, as I don't see change coming without sharp upheaval, and the powers that be will do anything to prevent that. The expansion of pointless hand to mouth social welfare along with the dumping of Chinese goods on the market to keep the sheeple satiated are ultimate proofs - commit suicide to keep people docile today. I just know the system we have today is not workable no matter who is in Congress or the oval office.
Who ever thought we'd look back at the Clinton years as a time of cooperation?
Whether it's of merit or not, I can't say. But it's hard to imagine this check to seniors not being about politics. Tax rebate bribery almost always wins votes, whether it's economically sensible or not. It worked for Bush, and it may ease the Democrats' bleeding in this election as well.
I'm inclined not to blame politicians for an endless array of bad policy. Rather, the fault lies with an idiot electorate that expects expensive things for free. Of course, nothing is actually free. The expensive college tuition you pay is nice example. As states lose tax revenue and cut back their funding of public universities, tuition rates rise accordingly. So, a chunk of the tax burden gets shifted onto teenagers. What a great idea! Who will even be able to afford college if its rates continue inflating at current rates for another ten years? So much for that economic stepladder America is known for.
I obviously agree with you 100%. In fact, those making more than $250K per year are probably in the top 2 or 3%.
Whether it's of merit or not, I can't say. But it's hard to imagine this check to seniors not being about politics. Tax rebate bribery almost always wins votes, whether it's economically sensible or not. It worked for Bush, and it may ease the Democrats' bleeding in this election as well.
My main points that started this whole debate were the following: a) this issue will come to a vote after the election, b) $250 will help a lot of the seniors in need, c) in the scheme of things, this $15 billion package (if passed) is "peanuts" compared to the $trillions going elsewhere., d) there has been no COLA since 2008, e) the blame for EVERYTHING that the folks here don't like is placed on this administration.
I am not that naive as to not realize that of course the Democrats are trying to win votes in November, but as you stated, the other side does the exact same thing. BTW, it is great to see you here. I don't think you have ever posted before. You seem to be a very reasonable person. Welcome! Please feel free to give us your opinions as often as you can.
Now we are on the same page. I would also like to know why they are not taking the money from the unused stimulus. I hope there is a good, logical reason.
BTW - Charlie - don't take any of this this personal. Geez - you're our buddy and greatly respected. We are talking about things that we see that make no sense economically and worry that some of it will put us in a tailspin.
I DO NOT take any of this personally. I realize that everyone here is expressing their opinion even though I disagree with some more so than with some others. I just want people here to realize that we are SO MUCH better off (at least financially) than about 95% of the American wage earners. We should count our blessings and have some compassion for those that have nothing and through no fault of their own. THIS is the reason I have been leaning toward the Democratic side. Democratic administrations are suppose to do more than the Republicans to help the common man. At least that is the way it is suppose to be. Obviously, there is corruption and fraud on both sides and I despise that. Probably fintail is right. We need a total change and I don't mean the Tea Party either. I cannot stand the Tea Party. We need a bunch of Abraham Lincolns' running the government.
And they should be rewarded. But instead they are punished.
When my son achieves grades that are in the top 2 -3 %, I reward him.
Based upon so many of your posts, it truly seems that you believe some of his grades should be taken away and given to some students whose grades aren't as good.
Do you understand the analogy?
TM
Do you understand the analogy?
Do you understand my philosophy? Read my post above. I feel obligated to help those that have nothing. I think government intervention is the best way to accomplish this. Obviously, I want this to be done with no corruption or fraud. There is no way that we can help all these people privately. I don't mind sacrificing some of my income to achieve this goal.
I certainly have no issue with the government helping that category of people. However, the government is the least efficient way to do anything, and many people will posit that the "no fault of their own" recipients are a far smaller group than the crowd who have learned to game the system.
So do I.
I think government intervention is the best way to accomplish this.
Agree, with concrete parameters and conditions to reduce the absurd levels of fraud, as well as provide incentives to get those folks on their feet and become productive, instead of keeping them dependent.
Obviously, I want this to be done with no corruption or fraud. There is no way that we can help all these people privately.
Agree.
I don't mind sacrificing some of my income to achieve this goal.
I don't mind either, and I already do so in the form of income taxes, as well as very generous charity in the form of cash, material goods, and my time giving away meals to feed the homeless. In addition, I have a long list of charities to which I make donations every year.
The problem here, Charlie, is that you and I already give more than our fair share. It isn't our fault it is wasted.
If you had the choice, would you rather see
A). 2% of the population making $250K, and paying a 39% level of income taxes, or
The answer is B, of course! It actually brings more revenue to the treasury with lower taxes. So... it clearly makes more sense to create government policies that offer incentives and rewards for success. This is elementary.
In businesses, a saleman that achieves a greater numbers of sales is generally rewarded with bonuses, not some sort of tax that would give money to those salesmen that didn't sell as much products. Think about the results if competition and rewards for productivity were to be reversed. That's EXACTLY what happens when you suggest that the more money you make, the more you should be taxed!
Of course, we need programs to help those that are needy. But we can have our cake and eat it too! We can help the needy AND reward success, which would lead us to greater productivity, which would lead us to MORE revenue going to the treasury.
This is so fundamental.
TM
Based upon so many of your posts, it truly seems that you believe some of his grades should be taken away and given to some students whose grades aren't as good.”
That’s a bogus analogy tagman. It suggests that you don’t get rewarded for making money. There’s only one instance of tax rates that were high enough to manage that. At one point, I think Sweden actually had a 90 percent rate! It was enough to incentivize people to avoid making money to stay under that bracket. Some of you guys seem to think that tax rates under the Reagan Administration were high enough to have that effect, which is ludicrous.
If you want to stick with the school analogy, I’ll set it up in a different way. Since you pay more taxes, your kids should have proportionately more time with publicly funded teachers, and better access to books. Parents of poor kids don’t pay taxes, so they don’t get to see the teacher at all. That’s fair right?
A). 2% of the population making $250K, and paying a 39% level of income taxes, or
The question is what’s going on with the other 98 and 96 percent in those two scenarios? While this isn’t necessarily a zero sum issue, in practice, you can’t double the number of “rich” people without compromising the middle class. That’s actually what’s been happening since 1972, when class discrepancies began growing in the US. The percentage of rich people has grown quite a bit, but so has that of the poor.
There is NO doubt that there are quite a few that take advantage of the system. But, that is inescapable. I would rather err on the side of helping some that don't deserve it rather than helping no one at all.
From my experience with many people in a variety of earning categories, they all are well adjusted no matter what the income is, other than the `rich` who are constantly feeling left behind ...I have spent some time with `street people` or those that are considered homeless, and although I am sure what I found out is not inclusive of all, but the ones I spoke with at length, it was a choice, and they were a happy lot, although it sure didn`t look it on the surface...Funny how that was....and I am still not sure about it, but it is the truth...
Our board here is certainly a diverse grope of opinionated souls, and all have their ` heart` in the right place.......and Charlie is doing so well in the stock market he just wants to share the wealth...I don`t blame him `smile` Tony
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926478/posts
Whatever the goal or objective is, it is smarter to reward it, than to punish it.
I believe making money is so good for the economy and for adding revenue to the government, that it should be rewarded.
It is amazing to me that some will argue this perspective.
TM
The rich should not be completely soaked, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with those who benefit most from the maintenance of the status quo to pay the most to maintain it. The American wealthy are not abused.
Government intervention and no corruption or fraud are not possible with each other.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This has been shown ad nauseum.
That's the BIG problem. There is an industry in how to get OPM.
> But, that is inescapable.
That is not the case. It can be handled, if politicians and bureaucrats want to stop the abuse. One factor would be to publish the name, address, and amount of subsidy given to each recipient. Then follow up on the reports of "she has a husband living with her so why is she getting welfare?" Or she died two years ago, so why are you paying checks for here?
George Bush had the right idea about having churches and other more local groups be involved in helping the truly needy in the community. Local controls mean that abuse is going to be noted when it's churches and groups instead of politicians handing out taxpayers' money like candy in return for votes. That happened here: google raleigh trammel and dayton and sclc and county funds and feldman, not all at one time of course, to see what happens to county money handed out for people to use for their own benefit rather than actually helping feed the needy as they claimed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Anyway, sure the "rich" should pay more taxes than the not "rich". And they do in so many ways.
Okay, what is rich? Anyone who has and earns more than me of course;) Tax the @#$% out of them. That seems to be the populist view.
While the 250k number being thrown around is probably around the top 2-3% particularly when you consider it taxable income. I still don't find that level being rich. Granted it certainly depends on where you live too. $250k/yr goes a hell of a lot further here in Illinois than it does in SoCal. But we have to pay more for anti depressants to survive the winter;)
Wouldn't this be very costly? I am all for anything that eliminates cheating. As far as churches or local groups taking care of the needy, I very much doubt this would work on a national scale.
According to WHOM?
BTW: I am not even CLOSE to the "rich" handle this regime is tossing about...I think that our society should help those that cannot help themselves, but there are far too many that use the safety net as a hammock.
"If you will not work, neither shall you eat"...
Yes, I know, very cruel and heartless of me.
Whatever the goal or objective is, it is smarter to reward it, than to punish it.
I believe making money is so good for the economy and for adding revenue to the government, that it should be rewarded.
It is amazing to me that some will argue this perspective.”
The notion that cutting taxes can boost government revenue comes from the Laffer curve concept. But to claim that even a 40 percent top rate is high enough to diminish tax revenue is completely unsupported by evidence. Rather, it’s a myth conservative economists have been spouting since the Reagan years.
Outside of that claim, what you’ve said is sound TM. I’d be more than happy to turn over the government to those of your persuasion half of the time. I’ve heard a lot of great economic ideas from National Review type conservatives. But those people don’t win elections.
Both parties know how to win them, but are poorly equipped to govern. I’m probably as annoyed with what the Dems have been doing as you may have been during the Bush years. Good politics seldom correlate with good policy. I’m inclined to fault the electorate for that.
The social safety net is a devils den of abuse and lies, but do away with it, and the rich will be dragged out of their beds at night...which is why it exists to begin with.
This is more of something for the politics thread...I want more information about the depreciating dollar and if the next 30+ years of 401K contributions I'll making have any point.
Apologies to all.
I bought $10K worth more BAC shares this morning while the stock was down, and then it advanced nicely, over 3% on the day.
Also I recommend adding more CMG to your portfolios. There is much more growth ahead.
And, Ford will hit $18 - $20, easily. Buy now.
TM
VUOC
Vu1 has invented a new type of energy efficient light bulb.
I bet it doubles from under 1 dollar to 2 bucks. I bought some myself recently.
TM
TM
I am placing my order at 6:00 AM Central. What a poor excuse for a selloff. By the way, I am using the iPad for this reply and I think I figured out how to copy and paste. Yipeee!!
And, I guess Charlie might appreciate knowing that most of my recent posts have been made on my EVO 4G. And it fits in my pocket.
TM
I am very OK with that. As soon as the market gets past the China factor, we'll be in even better shape.
TM
Edit: I am not waiting until November to increase my holdings of equities. I just called my broker and asked him to make those purchases this morning, to take advantage of this market dip due to the China factor... which is a rare event. The better story is great earnings reports. Just letting you all know. Today might be a good day to buy stocks, and I just bought quite a bit more.