Savings tax. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Okay, this came from Newsmax but think about it, what if billionaires (pretty savvy individuals) dumping their stock from some pretty solid American companies. This includes the evil George Soros.
http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/bil...nationalreview

What is the hell did they do before deficit spending? Also you forgot to mention the entire theory; you deficit spend when times are bad and you pay off your debt when times are good. That second part is pretty important. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

+

More of that "too big to fail" philosophy right Bertie. Why can't government employees be laid off or fired for some of their stupidity. Tell us why they are exempt. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

+

btw... did you just wakeup

Okay, this came from Newsmax but think about it, what if billionaires (pretty savvy individuals) dumping their stock from some pretty solid American companies. This includes the evil George Soros.
http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/bil...nationalreview Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What if billionaires dump their stock at a profit, bad mouth them in public to cause the price to fall, then buy them back from the suckers cheap? Sort of the old pump and dump, with an added twist of buying after stock gets to low.
Warren Buffet sells stocks on occasion but for sector specific reasons - then either buys more stock in different companies or invests in his own companies - like the huge Nebraska Furniture Mart he is building in Frisco or thereabouts. I'm more afraid when everyone is buying stocks and talking about how great they are. Buy stocks in good companies with fair to low valuations, solid fundamentals, and room to grow. Stock values are always relative to something. Sometimes cash is good but usually only in retrospect. Only liars successfully time the market.
But only do it (invest) after you have paid the credit card bills and paid off your BMW. Better yet, drive an old Ford pick up truck, like me.

What is the hell did they do before deficit spending? Also you forgot to mention the entire theory; you deficit spend when times are bad and you pay off your debt when times are good. That second part is pretty important. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Professor Dr. Admiral Barleycorn: I completely agree with you on this point.

No surprise there.

You just LOVE government not matter what, don't you?

I'd like to simplify the tax code and reduce the number of IRS employees needed to enforce it.

I'd like to get rid of the TSA and about a third of Homeland Security.

Bye-bye Department of Energy.

There a plenty of federal employees that need to go. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Just like with any organization, I'm sure there is dead weight in government jobs. However, wholesale reduction make no sense for essential government agencies. Cut IRS enforcement, and business owners will cheat like hell. Cut Homeland Security, and lines at airports sprawl out of control - plus those people aren't that highly paid. Cut the Department of Energy, and get oil spilled everywhere including your aquifers and lakes. The issue is effective government, without excessive regulation, not mindless cutting to look good short term.

More of that "too big to fail" philosophy right Bertie. Why can't government employees be laid off or fired for some of their stupidity. Tell us why they are exempt. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Dear PDA Barleycorn: It should probably be easier to fire fat, lazy government employees who sing stupid songs that get posted on Youtube - but most government employees are performing essential functions and should be evaluated on a non political, case by case basis.

Dear PDA Barleycorn: It should probably be easier to fire fat, lazy government employees who sing stupid songs that get posted on Youtube - but most government employees are performing essential functions and should be evaluated on a non political, case by case basis. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

So it was an innocent oversight on your part that you didn't mention the second part of liberal fiscal doctrine?


I would like to see government reduced by 10% this year and 5% the next proceeding five years. Yes, that means people would have to use their talents and abilites to provide for themselves in the private sector. I could hope that the best and brightest would be retained in government service in order to protect department heads positions but I doubt it. Imagine how well our government would operate if only the smartest and cleverest stayed in government. Then again, maybe we don't want really smart people in the IRS and NSA.

What is the hell did they do before deficit spending? Also you forgot to mention the entire theory; you deficit spend when times are bad and you pay off your debt when times are good. That second part is pretty important. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes you actually raise taxes in good times to pay off debt. Your chosen party seems not to be for that.

If I had not borrowed money I could not pay back I would have gone broke too. Them stupid suckers let me have the money and you suckers get stuck with the bill.
Keep them printing presses rolling, we will soon be wiping our ass with dollar bills.

Just like with any organization, I'm sure there is dead weight in government jobs. However, wholesale reduction make no sense for essential government agencies. Cut IRS enforcement, and business owners will cheat like hell. Cut Homeland Security, and lines at airports sprawl out of control - plus those people aren't that highly paid. Cut the Department of Energy, and get oil spilled everywhere including your aquifers and lakes. The issue is effective government, without excessive regulation, not mindless cutting to look good short term. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Do you even know what you are talking about?

First, the Department of Homeland Security doesn't run the lines at the air ports, the TSA does.

The TSA and HSA came into existence after September 11, 2001. We HAD airline security before that. The 9-11 attacks were a one-off that can never be reproduced again. If a rag head (or anyone else for that matter) announces a high-jacking, NO ONE will react passively the way they did on 9-11. Passengers will kill the hijacker(s) with their bare hands. They are going to die anyway if the hijacker gets into the cockpit, so why not go down fighting? One mentally deranged passenger that tried to break into a cockpit was beaten to death by passengers already.

And hijackers can't even get into cockpits anymore. The doors are armored, the pilots won't open them, the pilots are armed, and the AF will shoot down any hijacked plane that tries to fly near a big city. So, the rag heads have switched to using shoe bombs and underwear bombs.

We don't need a federal agency to stop that. Private security firms or local police can perform baggage screening just as well as the federal government union mopes I see working for the TSA at DFW and elsewhere.

The TSA was never anything more than a naked attempt by the Dems to expand government employee unions by capitalizing on our over-reaction to 9-11.

Second, the Department of Energy doesn't protect us from oil spills. The EPA does that.

Most of the DoE's functions used to be done by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Let the AEC go back to taking care of nuclear safety and waste and let the Department of Commerce run the National Laboratories (Berkeley, Los Alamos, etc).

The national "energy policy" functions of the DoE are horseshit.

The revival of our oil and gas industries have nothing to do with the DoE and everything to do with Halliburton and others developing new technologies for profit.

Yes you actually raise taxes in good times to pay off debt. Your chosen party seems not to be for that. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes WTF and YOUR chosen party seems to only know the "Raising taxes" part, even when the good times have not arrived yet. Funny how that works huh?

What if billionaires dump their stock at a profit, bad mouth them in public to cause the price to fall, then buy them back from the suckers cheap? Sort of the old pump and dump, with an added twist of buying after stock gets to low.
Warren Buffet sells stocks on occasion but for sector specific reasons - then either buys more stock in different companies or invests in his own companies - like the huge Nebraska Furniture Mart he is building in Frisco or thereabouts. I'm more afraid when everyone is buying stocks and talking about how great they are. Buy stocks in good companies with fair to low valuations, solid fundamentals, and room to grow. Stock values are always relative to something. Sometimes cash is good but usually only in retrospect. Only liars successfully time the market.
But only do it (invest) after you have paid the credit card bills and paid off your BMW. Better yet, drive an old Ford pick up truck, like me. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Yeh, but this might be the Ford Pickup you are driving.

http://www.autobytel.com/ford/f-450/2014/