"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, Steve B wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:20 am, "azotic" wrote:
...

The rich are the most attentive to the loopholes congress creates to
dodge their own taxes.

And rich people didn't get rich by being stupid. Some attain richness as
a
temporary thing, and then blow it. As in some lottery winners, and some
business successes. A friend of mine in Las Vegas was a HUGE success in
the
construction boom ten to twenty years ago. Had all the toys. Three
Hummers, fantastic infinity pool, lodge (defined as 10,000 sf cabin) in
the
woods of Utah. Now, he's back to a 2500 sf house and used cars dodging
creditors.

Point is, rich people as you say, pay attention to the pennies, and the
dollars just take care of themselves.

It is possible that your friend never was truly rich, he just had a
big balance sheet.


Drunken sailors seldom accumulate much in the way of wealth

On the other hand, pirates...

--

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the IRS.
Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to
sudden shocks.
After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and
dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget
shortfall of more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking will
not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel
misstress.


Don't worry...

--if we just keep extending tax breaks for the rich everything will get
better.

Trust me I promise it will.

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%, compared
to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the IRS.
Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to sudden
shocks.

After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by more
than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001, while
personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession created a
mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and dragging
tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget shortfall of
more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking will
not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel misstress.

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the
IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to
sudden shocks.

After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and
dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget
shortfall of more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking will
not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel
misstress.

Best Regards
Tom.

What do "free markets" have to do with it, Tom? What are you doing, trying
to explain economics or making a fruit salad?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the
IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to
sudden shocks.

After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash
and dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a
budget shortfall of more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking
will not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel
misstress.

Best Regards
Tom.

What do "free markets" have to do with it, Tom? What are you doing, trying
to explain economics or making a fruit salad?

--
Ed Huntress


After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and
dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget
shortfall of more than $20 billion.

To me it seems the markets had a lot to do with it in 2002.

How much tax revenue was lost when the the market created
the real estate bubble that imploded ?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Mar 28, 9:20*am, "azotic" wrote:
...

The rich are the most attentive to the loopholes congress creates to
dodge their own taxes.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:20 am, "azotic" wrote:
...

The rich are the most attentive to the loopholes congress creates to
dodge their own taxes.

And rich people didn't get rich by being stupid. Some attain richness as a
temporary thing, and then blow it. As in some lottery winners, and some
business successes. A friend of mine in Las Vegas was a HUGE success in the
construction boom ten to twenty years ago. Had all the toys. Three
Hummers, fantastic infinity pool, lodge (defined as 10,000 sf cabin) in the
woods of Utah. Now, he's back to a 2500 sf house and used cars dodging
creditors.

Point is, rich people as you say, pay attention to the pennies, and the
dollars just take care of themselves.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
www.cabgbypasssurgery.com

On 2011-03-28, azotic wrote:
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%, compared
to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the IRS.
Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to sudden
shocks.

I believe that the income that you are referring to, includes capital
gains. No surprise that it fell 16% between 2007 and 2008, since there
were not too many capital gains.

I think that you are reading too much into the article.

i

After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by more
than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001, while
personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession created a
mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and dragging
tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget shortfall of
more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking will
not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel misstress.

Best Regards
Tom.

On 2011-03-28, Steve B wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:20 am, "azotic" wrote:
...

The rich are the most attentive to the loopholes congress creates to
dodge their own taxes.

And rich people didn't get rich by being stupid. Some attain richness as a
temporary thing, and then blow it. As in some lottery winners, and some
business successes. A friend of mine in Las Vegas was a HUGE success in the
construction boom ten to twenty years ago. Had all the toys. Three
Hummers, fantastic infinity pool, lodge (defined as 10,000 sf cabin) in the
woods of Utah. Now, he's back to a 2500 sf house and used cars dodging
creditors.

Point is, rich people as you say, pay attention to the pennies, and the
dollars just take care of themselves.

It is possible that your friend never was truly rich, he just had a
big balance sheet.

i

On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

Mine, too.

You should be more thankful to Bush for this, who contributed greatly
to a market panic, which created an opportunity to buy stocks on the
cheap.

All Obama did was restoring confidence that things will not go to
hell, and created a concern that holding on to cash may lead to ruin
due to inflation. But the buying opportunity was, basically, presented
by Bush.

--if we just keep extending tax breaks for the rich everything will get
better.

I think that it is very dumb and shortsighted, for the "rich", to
insist on ruinous tax breaks. All that the rich could possibly get
from tax breaks, would amount to extra 10% of wealth. That will hardly
change their well being.

But financial instability and inflation that comes from an unbalanced
budget, may easily make "the rich" lose their shirts.

If I was rich, I would certainly root for having a stable budget and
stable financial system.

i

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to
the IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to
financial markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more
prone to sudden shocks.

After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash
and dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a
budget shortfall of more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking
will not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel
misstress.

Best Regards
Tom.

What do "free markets" have to do with it, Tom? What are you doing,
trying to explain economics or making a fruit salad?

--
Ed Huntress


After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and
dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget
shortfall of more than $20 billion.

To me it seems the markets had a lot to do with it in 2002.

How much tax revenue was lost when the the market created
the real estate bubble that imploded ?

Best Regards
Tom.

I may be reading you backwards. As for depending upon projected earnings,
there's a good subject for debate -- one that I couldn't, and wouldn't,
engage right now. d8-)

Your California figures are pretty strange in light of state reports. For
example, as of 1999, capital gains taxes were 26.13% of all income tax
revenues in the state (see table 5):

http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/1000613.pdf

If that fell by 2/3, it would equal 17.4% of California's income tax revenue
loss *all by itself*, disregarding any other revenue losses when the bubble
burst. It seems unlikely that the percentage represented by capital gains
would have fallen much between 1999 and 2001. The general trend at that time
was up. (BTW, California taxes all income, including short-term and
long-term capital gains, at the same rate.)

However, I have enough on my plate at the moment. Your point probably is
accurate, disregarding specifics. For the country as a whole, the total
revenue figures did not swing down, but your principle would still hold.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

You might want to compare your figures with this, as well:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/BS_SCH2.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

Mine, too.

You should be more thankful to Bush for this, who contributed greatly
to a market panic, which created an opportunity to buy stocks on the
cheap.


NO

Under Bush, my 401K had lost over 2/3 of it's value

--about $100K of it was lost because unbeknownst to me, Bank Of America had
been unlawfully taking very short term postions on one of my mutual
funds....I recovered a little over $700 as the result of a class action suit
~ last Aug IIRC

IOW, I still have a LONG ways to go before I'm even close to breaking even.

All Obama did was restoring confidence that things will not go to
hell,

Things had already gone to hell with no hand baskets anywhere in sight if
you were to ask me.

and created a concern that holding on to cash may lead to ruin
due to inflation. But the buying opportunity was, basically, presented
by Bush.

"The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and
clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have
recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of
effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible
people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know
that overstaying the festivities -- that is, continuing to speculate in
companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely
to generate in the future -- will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But
they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party.
Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before
midnight. There's a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the
clocks have no hands."

--Warren Buffett--Berkshire Hathaway 2000 Chairman's Letter

IMO you have it backwards---in his second term, Bush oversaw a selling
opportunity which lasted a very long time before finally burstng.

--if we just keep extending tax breaks for the rich everything will get
better.

I think that it is very dumb and shortsighted, for the "rich", to
insist on ruinous tax breaks. All that the rich could possibly get
from tax breaks, would amount to extra 10% of wealth. That will hardly
change their well being.


Admittedly, I was being facetious....

But financial instability and inflation that comes from an unbalanced
budget, may easily make "the rich" lose their shirts.

If I was rich, I would certainly root for having a stable budget and
stable financial system.


If *you* were rich, most likely it would be because you are a stingy
ruthless psychotic ******* who despises the poor and enjoys watching the gap
between the middle and upper classes grow increasingly wider.

But you aren't, and you don't.

--

On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

Mine, too.

You should be more thankful to Bush for this, who contributed greatly
to a market panic, which created an opportunity to buy stocks on the
cheap.


NO

Under Bush, my 401K had lost over 2/3 of it's value

Mine did not, because I stayed away from stocks when they were
expensive.

--about $100K of it was lost because unbeknownst to me, Bank Of America had
been unlawfully taking very short term postions on one of my mutual
funds....I recovered a little over $700 as the result of a class action suit
~ last Aug IIRC

What fund was that? What happened?

IOW, I still have a LONG ways to go before I'm even close to breaking even.

All Obama did was restoring confidence that things will not go to
hell,

Things had already gone to hell with no hand baskets anywhere in sight if
you were to ask me.

You are trying to look at things from the perspective of an
ideologue. Not really very different from the perspective of right
wingers -- seeing everything through the prism of certain preconceived
notions.

I try to see things as they are, without being constrained by a
specific ideology, trying to be a good analyst (and not always
succeeding).

and created a concern that holding on to cash may lead to ruin
due to inflation. But the buying opportunity was, basically, presented
by Bush.

"The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and
clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have
recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of
effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible
people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know
that overstaying the festivities -- that is, continuing to speculate in
companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely
to generate in the future -- will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But
they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party.
Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before
midnight. There's a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the
clocks have no hands."

--Warren Buffett--Berkshire Hathaway 2000 Chairman's Letter

IMO you have it backwards---in his second term, Bush oversaw a selling
opportunity which lasted a very long time before finally burstng.

I consider myself a value investor, buy things when they are cheap,
and sell when they are expensive. Listening to Warren Buffett keeps me
out of trouble.

But financial instability and inflation that comes from an unbalanced
budget, may easily make "the rich" lose their shirts.

If I was rich, I would certainly root for having a stable budget and
stable financial system.

If *you* were rich, most likely it would be because you are a stingy
ruthless psychotic ******* who despises the poor and enjoys watching the gap
between the middle and upper classes grow increasingly wider.

But you aren't, and you don't.


I am a stingy psychotic *******, but I do not wish ill to general
categories of people. I would like to be rich some day. What I do not
do is spend time with excuses on why exactly I cannot be doing
something productive.

i

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT
wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the
most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with
the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more
unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

Mine, too.

You should be more thankful to Bush for this, who contributed greatly
to a market panic, which created an opportunity to buy stocks on the
cheap.


NO

Under Bush, my 401K had lost over 2/3 of it's value

Mine did not, because I stayed away from stocks when they were
expensive.


This was a company sponsored 401K, invested in mutual funds--had I known, I
would have withdrawn most of the funds and transferred to a
self-administered program.


--about $100K of it was lost because unbeknownst to me, Bank Of America
had
been unlawfully taking very short term postions on one of my mutual
funds....I recovered a little over $700 as the result of a class action
suit
~ last Aug IIRC

What fund was that? What happened?


Here is a brief mention :

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/St...&tof =9&frt=2

The actual settlement papers I would have to look around for...

From what I understand, Bank of America was illegally taking short term
positions effectively manipulating the stock prices within the fund.

IOW, I still have a LONG ways to go before I'm even close to breaking
even.

All Obama did was restoring confidence that things will not go to
hell,

Things had already gone to hell with no hand baskets anywhere in sight if
you were to ask me.

You are trying to look at things from the perspective of an
ideologue. Not really very different from the perspective of right
wingers -- seeing everything through the prism of certain preconceived
notions.


We were losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month and the banks had no money
to loan even if they could have found some sucker that wanted to go further
into debt...


I try to see things as they are, without being constrained by a
specific ideology, trying to be a good analyst (and not always
succeeding).


The way I see it, 2 decades of savings went down the drain because somebody
tossed Bush's favorite chew-toy into the brush someplace over in Iraq.


and created a concern that holding on to cash may lead to ruin
due to inflation. But the buying opportunity was, basically, presented
by Bush.

"The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright
and
clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have
recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses
of
effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally
sensible
people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They
know
that overstaying the festivities -- that is, continuing to speculate in
companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are
likely
to generate in the future -- will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice.
But
they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva
party.
Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before
midnight. There's a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which
the
clocks have no hands."

--Warren Buffett--Berkshire Hathaway 2000 Chairman's Letter

IMO you have it backwards---in his second term, Bush oversaw a selling
opportunity which lasted a very long time before finally burstng.

I consider myself a value investor, buy things when they are cheap,
and sell when they are expensive. Listening to Warren Buffett keeps me
out of trouble.


Suggest think extra hard when financial advisors keep telling you "Don't
sell now because the market will surely recover soon".


But financial instability and inflation that comes from an unbalanced
budget, may easily make "the rich" lose their shirts.

If I was rich, I would certainly root for having a stable budget and
stable financial system.

If *you* were rich, most likely it would be because you are a stingy
ruthless psychotic ******* who despises the poor and enjoys watching the
gap
between the middle and upper classes grow increasingly wider.

But you aren't, and you don't.


I am a stingy psychotic *******, but I do not wish ill to general
categories of people. I would like to be rich some day.

I have no desire to become rich--seen though the eyes of many, I'm already
quite wealthy.

What I do not
do is spend time with excuses on why exactly I cannot be doing
something productive.

One excuse is as good as another--if I don't feel like doing something
productive then it's my perogative...no excuses needed.

--

You got it exactley right Ed, basing a budget on projected revenue
seems to have some serious pitfalls. How the heck are they ever
going to pay off all that accumulated debit ?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:05:15 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

But is it much ahead of where it was before the melt down?

On 2011-03-29, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ignoramus7104" wrote in message
...
On 2011-03-28, PrecisionmachinisT
wrote:

"azotic" wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the
most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with
the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more
unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

Mine, too.

You should be more thankful to Bush for this, who contributed greatly
to a market panic, which created an opportunity to buy stocks on the
cheap.


NO

Under Bush, my 401K had lost over 2/3 of it's value

Mine did not, because I stayed away from stocks when they were
expensive.


This was a company sponsored 401K, invested in mutual funds--had I known, I
would have withdrawn most of the funds and transferred to a
self-administered program.

Not true.

All company sponsored 401k plans have a money market (stable value) or
other safe option.


--about $100K of it was lost because unbeknownst to me, Bank Of America
had
been unlawfully taking very short term postions on one of my mutual
funds....I recovered a little over $700 as the result of a class action
suit
~ last Aug IIRC

What fund was that? What happened?


Here is a brief mention :

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/St...&tof =9&frt=2

The actual settlement papers I would have to look around for...

From what I understand, Bank of America was illegally taking short term
positions effectively manipulating the stock prices within the fund.

Would be interesting to read the court filings.

You are trying to look at things from the perspective of an
ideologue. Not really very different from the perspective of right
wingers -- seeing everything through the prism of certain preconceived
notions.

We were losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month and the banks had
no money to loan even if they could have found some sucker that
wanted to go further into debt...



I try to see things as they are, without being constrained by a
specific ideology, trying to be a good analyst (and not always
succeeding).


The way I see it, 2 decades of savings went down the drain because somebody
tossed Bush's favorite chew-toy into the brush someplace over in Iraq.

This underscores the riskiness of capital markets (and idiocy of the
republican idea of gambling with Social Security funds).

I did not make an enormous amount of money on the recession, but I did
have a decent positive return, because I actively tried to avoid doing
anything that would be silly in my opinion.

I am well aware that a lot of people lost huge amounts of money, and
to this day, I wonder if I was just lucky.

In any case, having a value based outlook and not going along with the
crowd, seems to prevent major disasters.

IMO you have it backwards---in his second term, Bush oversaw a selling
opportunity which lasted a very long time before finally burstng.

I consider myself a value investor, buy things when they are cheap,
and sell when they are expensive. Listening to Warren Buffett keeps me
out of trouble.

Suggest think extra hard when financial advisors keep telling you "Don't
sell now because the market will surely recover soon".

First, I never, ever, listen to any advisors.

Second, I was buying when the market was going down, and I have no
problem with that. I thought that the prices were quite attractive,
and had no way to know that they would become even more attractive.


But financial instability and inflation that comes from an unbalanced
budget, may easily make "the rich" lose their shirts.

If I was rich, I would certainly root for having a stable budget and
stable financial system.

If *you* were rich, most likely it would be because you are a stingy
ruthless psychotic ******* who despises the poor and enjoys watching the
gap
between the middle and upper classes grow increasingly wider.

But you aren't, and you don't.


I am a stingy psychotic *******, but I do not wish ill to general
categories of people. I would like to be rich some day.

I have no desire to become rich--seen though the eyes of many, I'm already
quite wealthy.

Good for you!

What I do not
do is spend time with excuses on why exactly I cannot be doing
something productive.

One excuse is as good as another--if I don't feel like doing something
productive then it's my perogative...no excuses needed.

This is true, also.

i

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:05:15 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

But is it much ahead of where it was before the melt down?


Yes some.

But it's still down about $250K from where is was before Bush.

--

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:55:35 -0500, Ignoramus25320
wrote:
snip

But just to be clear, he was probably at least partially a victim of the
banksters and politicians who had prolonged / enabled the
hyper-inflated-mortgage-bubble-derivitives-fraud by allowing it to go on for
waayyy longer than it should have.


Actually, the bankers were his victims.

==========
Don't confuse the bankers with the banks.

The *BANKS* did indeed lose very significant amounts of
money, directly for their stock holders and creditors, who
in many cases were wiped out, and indirectly huge sums,
running to trillions of dollars for the taxpayers, not only
for the taxes, but the huge opportunity costs when their
jobs were eliminated.

By contrast, the *BANKERS* made out like bandits, with huge
amounts of bonus money and other compensation/perks skimmed
from their banks, based on the phoney baloney bubble
profits. A pitifully small percentage of this money has
been recovered, [most of it paid by the bank and not the
accountable individual] and almost no one has gone to
prison.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"azotic" wrote in message
...


You got it exactley right Ed, basing a budget on projected
revenue
seems to have some serious pitfalls. How the heck are they
ever
going to pay off all that accumulated debit ?

Best Regards
Tom.

On Mar 30, 7:46*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
..
What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Christopher A. Young

"buy that" being the investment in production machinery for the
component I helped develop, instead another order goes to China. Of
course this unintended negative consequence MUST be invisible in
government statistics, just like the deleterious effects of
environmental and employment regs. We have the society we asked for.

George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:47:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
snip
I'm not sure the Zero administration has any plans to reduce
the deficit, or the debt. That will be left to later admin.
snip
==========
It has been observed that life is what occurs while you are
making other plans...

Current news is that the true Republicans and financial
conservatives are refusing to even consider additional
continuing resolutions so the federal government is
scheduled to begin shutting down 08 April until a new budget
can be enacted.

Even more critical in the slightly longer term is not only
the refusal of the true Republicans and the new tea-party
affiliated members of Congress to vote for any increase in
the national debt, but their avowed intentions to "spike"
[prevent] even the consideration of such increase in either
house.

It should be crystal clear the politicians at every level of
government in the US will spend every cent they can get
their hands on, and the only way to prevent financial/fiscal
disaster is to chop the money tree down, i.e. no increase in
the debt limit. To be sure this will cause great hardship
and upheaval for many people, but nothing approaching the
universal catastrophe of a fiscal crisis with sovereign debt
default that is sure to occur in a few years if the US
national debt limit is again increased or, god forbid,
removed.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

I'm expected to live within my means, Congress should, also.
After all, we give them 2 trillion a year (or more) in
walking around money.

Goverment shut down? Bring it on! We'd be just fine (or
better off) without most of thier programs.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...

==========
It has been observed that life is what occurs while you are
making other plans...

Current news is that the true Republicans and financial
conservatives are refusing to even consider additional
continuing resolutions so the federal government is
scheduled to begin shutting down 08 April until a new budget
can be enacted.

Even more critical in the slightly longer term is not only
the refusal of the true Republicans and the new tea-party
affiliated members of Congress to vote for any increase in
the national debt, but their avowed intentions to "spike"
[prevent] even the consideration of such increase in either
house.

It should be crystal clear the politicians at every level of
government in the US will spend every cent they can get
their hands on, and the only way to prevent financial/fiscal
disaster is to chop the money tree down, i.e. no increase in
the debt limit. To be sure this will cause great hardship
and upheaval for many people, but nothing approaching the
universal catastrophe of a fiscal crisis with sovereign debt
default that is sure to occur in a few years if the US
national debt limit is again increased or, god forbid,
removed.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:36:43 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?
=============
Not so much a surprise as more important news like Barry
Bonds steroid use crowded it off the radar.

see
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52164.html
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/298749-4

Also see Senator Moran's [R-Kansas] statement on increasing
the debt limit.
http://moran.senate.gov/public/index...6-aed23f85f511


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:47:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
snip
I'm not sure the Zero administration has any plans to reduce
the deficit, or the debt. That will be left to later admin.
snip
==========
It has been observed that life is what occurs while you are
making other plans...

Current news is that the true Republicans and financial
conservatives are refusing to even consider additional
continuing resolutions so the federal government is
scheduled to begin shutting down 08 April until a new budget
can be enacted.

Even more critical in the slightly longer term is not only
the refusal of the true Republicans and the new tea-party
affiliated members of Congress to vote for any increase in
the national debt, but their avowed intentions to "spike"
[prevent] even the consideration of such increase in either
house.

It should be crystal clear the politicians at every level of
government in the US will spend every cent they can get
their hands on, and the only way to prevent financial/fiscal
disaster is to chop the money tree down, i.e. no increase in
the debt limit. To be sure this will cause great hardship
and upheaval for many people, but nothing approaching the
universal catastrophe of a fiscal crisis with sovereign debt
default that is sure to occur in a few years if the US
national debt limit is again increased or, god forbid,
removed.

Nonsense, George. The "great hardship" includes the fact that the confidence
in US Treasury securities will go down the toilet, raising interest rates
until servicing debt really IS a problem. It's a minor one right now but it
quickly would become a major one.

The sovereign debt of the US CANNOT default. I'm sure you realize why.

The Teabaggers are idiots who are playing games with the future of our
economy. They believe nonsense like that which Chris posted in his last
couple of messages. Call it "economics without numbers," which is to say,
economics without any knowledge of what's really going on. It's pure
ideology and there is no evidence to back it up.

If you need some analysis of the difference between stimulative effects of
cutting taxes, versus the stimulus that results from short-term (less than
four or five years) deficit spending, there's an abundant supply. Remember,
Reagan stimulated the economy with VAST amounts of deficit spending. He's
the one who put us on that big credit card in the sky.

Do you need references? Just ask.

--
Ed Huntress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?

If you have time and interest to really understand what's going on, read
this and follow the links. Set aside some evenings to read the studies:

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/03/28/...duction-39962/

The rest is myths.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:36:43 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?
=============
Not so much a surprise as more important news like Barry
Bonds steroid use crowded it off the radar.

see
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52164.html
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/298749-4

Also see Senator Moran's [R-Kansas] statement on increasing
the debt limit.
http://moran.senate.gov/public/index...6-aed23f85f511


Where are Moran's numbers? He's blowing smoke.

--
Ed Huntress

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:36:43 -0500, CaveLamb

George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?
=============
Not so much a surprise as more important news like Barry
Bonds steroid use crowded it off the radar.

Nah, Barry Bonds is like so yesterday:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ker.html?lanow

Cheers!
Rich

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:46*am, "Stormin Mormon"
..
What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

"buy that" being the investment in production machinery for the
component I helped develop, instead another order goes to China. Of
course this unintended negative consequence MUST be invisible in
government statistics, just like the deleterious effects of
environmental and employment regs. We have the society we asked for.

Well, _I_ never asked for it. But then again, Democracy consists of stuff
like two wolves and a sheep voting on who's for dinner.

"Let's all vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

That's why the Founding Fathers established a Republic rather than a
mobocracy, although the unionized propaganda mills don't teach hard
stuff like history any more, just "Self-Esteem:" "Duh, I dunno how to
add two plus two, but I feel REAL GOOD about myself, yup, yup, yup, yup!"

Thanks,
Rich

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than the ones
that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit even
when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to everything that was
known about economics at that time, and a no-no under Keynesian theory.

That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on that big
credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the economy turned
up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/28/2011 12:05 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
wrote in message
...
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois-states that are the most
heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy-are now among those with the
biggest budget holes.

As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable.
Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%,
compared


I feel so sorry for them really I do.

FWIW:

My 401K has more than doubled under Obama.

to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according to the IRS.
Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial
markets-through stock-based pay or investments-they are more prone to
sudden shocks.
After the dot-com bust, the state's revenues from capital gains fell by
more than two-thirds, to $5 billion in 2003 from $17 billion in 2001,
while personal-income taxes fell 15% over the same period. The recession
created a mirror image of the boom, with the wealthy leading the crash and
dragging tax revenues down with them. By 2002, California had a budget
shortfall of more than $20 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...592684626.html

Perhaps the idiots in those states should stop depending on projected
earnings
before they spend thier citizens income in advance. Wishfull thinking will
not
fix thier budget busting spending spree. Free markets are a cruel
misstress.


Don't worry...

--if we just keep extending tax breaks for the rich everything will get
better.

Trust me I promise it will.




He, he, he, so many people are going to believe that line of bull you
wouldn't believe it. Even after seeing how doing favors for the rich has
not translated into any gains for anyone else, idiotic Americans still
are buying that lie. Even children understand when you take things away
from them they have less. But many adults in this country have had so
much taken from them in the way of their wealth and they still don't
understand that they are paying more and more in taxes so that the
richest among us can get richer and richer.

I saw the CEO of SAK's Fifth Avenue on TV today and he was saying how
great things were going for his stores and that the rich were back in
force buying all kinds of high end items. Isn't that great? While most
of us are struggling to buy gas and food the rich are doing better than
ever and are out spending on luxury goods. If you're rich you've got to
love this country. It just keeps getting better and better. For everyone
else, not so much.

Hawke

On 3/28/2011 10:10 AM, Ignoramus7104 wrote:
On 2011-03-28, Steve wrote:

"Jim wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:20 am, wrote:
...

The rich are the most attentive to the loopholes congress creates to
dodge their own taxes.

And rich people didn't get rich by being stupid. Some attain richness as a
temporary thing, and then blow it. As in some lottery winners, and some
business successes. A friend of mine in Las Vegas was a HUGE success in the
construction boom ten to twenty years ago. Had all the toys. Three
Hummers, fantastic infinity pool, lodge (defined as 10,000 sf cabin) in the
woods of Utah. Now, he's back to a 2500 sf house and used cars dodging
creditors.

Point is, rich people as you say, pay attention to the pennies, and the
dollars just take care of themselves.

It is possible that your friend never was truly rich, he just had a
big balance sheet.

i


Most people don't understand what it means to be rich in America. They
think if you have a few million you're rich. If you're worth 25 million
or so you're really rich. But the people who make up the rich are really
those 300,000 people at the top of the pyramid. They make up about 1% of
the population. Their wealth is estimated to be equal to that held by
150 million families. Their combined wealth is so much that they have
unbelievable political influence, which explains why they get so many
tax loopholes just for them.

More than half of these people never earned a dime of their wealth. For
them it's all inherited. Then you have the nuvo rich who have made
millions and billions by getting lucky in business. People like Bill
Gates and Paul Allen come to mind. Also numerous hedge fund managers and
a few entertainers get filthy rich too. But it's only 300,000 people.
Those are the real rich. Everybody else is not even close and they are
subject to the ups and downs of life that can cause them to lose
everything. But you don't hear of the 1% losing everything. That's
nearly impossible to do.

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Hawke

On Mar 30, 3:21*pm, Hawke wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Hawke

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother you
so much?

Dan

On 2011-03-30, wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21?pm, Hawke wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Hawke

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother you
so much?


I am not envious, but I hope to be in the top 1%. It probably will
never materialize, but I would like that to happen. Because of this, I
have some interest in this matter.

Note that income and wealth (net worth) are not equally
distributed. There are people with high net worth and comparatively
low income. Say, someone with 10 million dollars invested 50% in cash,
and 50% in diversified stock investments (typical), would likely earn
about $150,000 per year in dividends and interest, which is a very
unremarkable income -- but $10,000,000 is a remarkable wealth.

So, the word "rich" has many meanings and is not a precisely defined
term.

Income inequality is known to exist between rich and poor, but what is
not so well known is that among the rich, the inequality is even more
pronounced. Scores of little guys who saved up between 1 and 5
millions, and just a few super wealthy billionaires. Source is a book
called _Richistan_, which I personally highly recommend.

i

Ed Huntress wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?

If you have time and interest to really understand what's going on, read
this and follow the links. Set aside some evenings to read the studies:

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/03/28/...duction-39962/

The rest is myths.

They hopped on this horse 30 years ago and now that they are in the deep
**** part of the river they want to change horse. Ooops wait forgot to
bring another horse along.

-jim





--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than
the ones that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit
even when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to
everything that was known about economics at that time, and a no-no
under Keynesian theory.
That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on
that big credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the
economy turned up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.

-jim




When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

Calling the teabagger's economic policy a "myth" is given them to much
credit by half.
It's either willful ignorance, fraud, or a combination of the two.

--
John R. Carroll

"jim" "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message
.. .


Ed Huntress wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
George,

After reading you note this morning I went looking for anything
about this (little problem) on the news sites.

One video report (on Fox, of course - 80% sure it won't happen).

Nothing anywhere else that I saw.

I guess they are all saving it for a surprise?

If you have time and interest to really understand what's going on, read
this and follow the links. Set aside some evenings to read the studies:

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/03/28/...duction-39962/

The rest is myths.

They hopped on this horse 30 years ago and now that they are in the deep
**** part of the river they want to change horse. Ooops wait forgot to
bring another horse along.

-jim

When you actually sit down with one of these anti-tax, anti-deficit folks
and show them what Reagan *actually* did to stimulate the economy, you tend
to get this look of disbelief, followed by a period of quiet...followed by a
reversion to anti-tax, anti-deficit mythology.

The psychology of buying into myths and not wanting to be confused by the
facts must be really interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 30, 4:01*pm, Ignoramus23509 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23509.invalid wrote:

I am not envious, but I hope to be in the top 1%. It probably will
never materialize, but I would like that to happen. Because of this, I
have some interest in this matter.

i

I hope you get in the top 1%. You have never impressed me as someone
that wastes energy being envious, but there are a fair number that
post in RCM that do.

Dan

On 2011-03-30, wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:01?pm, Ignoramus23509 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23509.invalid wrote:

I am not envious, but I hope to be in the top 1%. It probably will
never materialize, but I would like that to happen. Because of this, I
have some interest in this matter.

I hope you get in the top 1%. You have never impressed me as someone
that wastes energy being envious, but there are a fair number that
post in RCM that do.

Thanks. It is very difficult to be envious in this country, because
there is always going to be a lot of people to envy. So, being
envious, is, really, a pitiful existence.

i