Obama's Approval Rating Plunges
Obama's Approval Rating drops 9% in just one month. It's most likely due to high gas prices.
Trending Content
| +48 | Interviews Are So Fake | 29 | 4s | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +28 | ADHD ! | 11 | 40m | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 28 | 2s | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 16h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
I think there's a lot of statistical noise in that. Also, as much as it makes me grit my teeth, RINO Romney is a more viable alternative to Obama than the other folks.
Overall, the economy is improving and the bad economy that Obama was unfairly blamed for last year is now becoming the better economy that Obama can unfairly take credit for. Hopefully us Republicans have learned an important lesson in intellectually honest campaigning.
Now that is some solid unintentional humor.
They have to be "intellectual" first to do an "intellectually honest" campaign. lol. Between Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich and Santorum, I question if any of them put together have half a brain.
How is the economy improving when the employment number is at its lowest level since the end of WW2?
227000 jobs were created this past Feb. The unemployment rate is shrinking from almost 10 percent to around 8 percent. We were bleeding 750000 jobs a month roughly, now creating roughly 200, 000 jobs per month. I'm not a 100 percent fan of Obama either, but at the same time, you're being one-sided if you think that the economy wasn't already bleeding jobs before Obama entered office. Dubya presided over the worst economy since the Depression. 2008 was a crisis that was brewing before Obama came into office for a variety of reasons including lack of regulation of derivatives which was mostly due to the deregulation fever orchestrated under the Clinton Administration. I like Romney's tax ideas because I don't want the bastards at the IRS to fuck me out of 30 percent of my money either. But, just saying, people will go with the train that is going strong, rather than an unproven guy. Personally, I liked Ron Paul because he wanted to rid this country of the IRS and the income tax. Cain, I liked too, because of 9 percent. But realistically, what does Romney have to challenge Obama on?
Oh how sweet it would be to see Obama as a one term President...too bad they'll just replace him with another fool.
Well, Obama is almost certainly guaranteed reelection given the economic growth, strong Dow and job creation. Although his tax policies aren't the best, as Dick Gephardt said the other day, politicians are like plumbers. You hire them back when they do a good job the first time. But if they don't do a good job the first time, you don't. Obama can say that he turned things around the first time around and now he should come back a second term.
Romney on the other hand is unproven and maybe I'm a little off, but the guy just doesn't seem to be that bright. I mean, I like the sound of his tax proposal, but he doesn't seem to be the sharpest screw in the toolbox.
Romney is 100x better than Obama simply because Congress will most likely be Republican controlled and Romney is 100% about the economy. He isn't going to do crap about social issues once he is in office and Presidents don't get elected because of anything but the economy.
No one cares about foreign wars or social issues, that is just shit that the factions bicker about. The majority of people vote based on employment, inflation, stock market, etc.
If Obama keeps this up he will find himself running a tight race against someone who is financially proven. Obama might have great speeches, but his Hope and Change message isn't going to do jack squat for him this time around. And the only people who care about this class warfare garbage are the same people who would have voted for Obama regardless.
So true. I want Romney too, just saying the "message" might overwhelm him because Obama has this marketing campaign and numbers on his side.
Everyone knows Romney is just saying crap to get the social conservatives to back him. You need to cow toe to the loonies to get the nomination. Once that is in hand you can just start pounding the economic message. If the man can make the Olympics a success he can do wonders with a sympathetic Congress.
The economy is just dying to tear ass. Just needs someone to unleash it. Romney will do just that.
This is the biggest load of bullshit out there. Just complete and utter garbage.
ORLY?
How can you be so definitive in your statement when countless economic indicators are ticking up. Things aren't breaking out because of a deadlocked Congress.
Romney has the skills and will have a favorable Congress working with him. He will be able to get things done, something Obama will not be able to do.
http://www.ism.ws/ismreport/mfgrob.cfm
Anyone who thinks the economy is recovering or is just waiting to take off is completely delusional. We are going through a long term secular change, and the fun is just getting started.
Ah, I see. So, the economy won't move forward unless we elect a Republican who enacts far right policies and deregulates to the point where we are in a position to re-live the scandals of Enron and WorldCom and blow up another bubble.
Or, we could just have some level of compromise instead of it needing to be so fucking partisan and extreme.
Or pigs could fly. End of the day Obama was just as partisan when he had the upper hand. Republicans most likely will take the Senate and if they do nothing is going to happen under Obama. Couple that with the fact that he has been a pretty lame President at best and I would rather have Romney, someone who knows how to be a successful leader and not a "community organizer".
Romney is experiences in both the public and private sector as well as with the damn Olympics, a friggin albatross of an event. Plus he will have a pro business Congress just waiting to embrace Non-Obama.
I think I would literally piss my pants in glee to not have to hear Obumbles crying non stop about people paying their fair share on and on and on and on again.
Also, JeffSkilling is on point. No President or Congress can undo the damage of the bubble's burst and the tectonic shift of our economy.
Not to mention, 7 million jobs that were lost to efficiency and technology are not going to be fixed with shouts of lower taxes.
For someone like you in Private Equity, your belief in Obama's ability to grow the economy is outrageous.
Obama has done NOTHING, and he's the reason the private sector cannot take off.
I
.
romney is done. enough said
Connor -
I did not imply that Obama is growing the economy, I am saying that no single act of Congress or government is going to make the economy start growing at a rapid speed. We are recovering (still) from a massive fiscal / banking crisis and have seen entire industries drastically shrink. A global economic crisis the likes of which we have faced does not get fixed quickly and certainly does not get fixed with lower tax rates alone.
Didn't you learn about the financial crisis in your economics classes?
I love the obama dick slobbering by a few of our ranks.
ANT, your above comments are spot the fuck on!
Romney wants to reduce EVERYONE's taxes by 20 percent. I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in paying a third of my money to those bastards at the IRS. Romney understands basic economics, in that when you give people tax relief, they spend and invest more. The high income taxes people pay in this country are a testament to the dumbing down of America, no different than the fucking mob showing up at your business and demanding protection money. I don't mind paying a sales tax, but double digit income taxes? Get the fuck out of here. Romney will also, with the assistance of a Republican led Congress, not stand for this bullshit discussion of higher capital gains taxes like Team Obama wants to impose. I mean, if I work, I get taxed to hell. Then I have to pay cap. gains taxes on the money I manage to save/invest, disincentivizing saving/investing in this country. Less taxes means more spending and investment which is an economic boost that this country needs. More taxes means less disposable income. I have to spell it out for Team Obama because he and his friends slept in economics class and gave the professor a bj to get an A on the final.
But yes, Romney has to pander to the "social conservative" base who want someone in the White House who will push through their "social movement." After kissing up to them, he can get to work focusing 100 percent on the market, economy, job growth, getting inflation (gas prices) down or at least pushing for alternatives and making sure we don't keep paying high taxes to those jerks at the IRS who collect income taxes from Americans without constitutional authority.
^ Romney will also not cut spending and will probably increase it just like fellow "conservative" Bush did. Romney would be a disaster for our deficit situation.
Maybe, maybe not, but with Obama we KNOW that he will not decrease this wasteful spending that the government is engaging in. Plus, we have to remember that Bush spent a lot of money because of tax cuts coupled with spending in Iraq/Afghanistan. That same defense spending wouldn't be there in the next term though, since the spending has been toned down, especially in Iraq. Yes, Romney might be a big spender, but we know Obama is a free spender. We also know that Obama doesn't have a problem with current taxes and I don't know about you, but telling the IRS to stick their 1040 up their asses like Romney will do is a lot more worthwhile than the pandering to the Warren Buffett followers out there who are stupid enough to actuallly suggest that the IRS hit them even harder.
Obama increasing deficit = Yes, we know this
Romney increasing deficit = Maybe, not 100% sure yet
Obama skills = Community Organizer
Romney skills = Running Businesses successfully / Making it rain
Yeaaahhhhh, I think I will put my money on Romney to do something. At least you won't hear Romney crying about fairness like some school yard pussy.
"Indeed, a preliminary analysis by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released Thursday estimates that the three candidates' plans could add between $250 billion and $7 trillion of debt over the next nine years."
People thinking Romney is going to cut the debt are fucking retarded, at most he will cut at proposed increases.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/in…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-u…
Preliminary
Could
Between $250 B and $7 T
Wow, those are some vague estimates. That is weatherman shit. It is also bullshit campaign promises to get elected.
What we do know is that Obama has added +$4 Trillion and he is only 3 years in.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html
[quote=ANT]Preliminary
Could
Between $250 B and $7 T
Wow, those are some vague estimates. That is weatherman shit. It is also bullshit campaign promises to get elected.
What we do know is that Obama has added +$4 Trillion and he is only 3 years in.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html[/quote]
As much as I despise Obama, he would reduce deficits more than Romney as he would raise taxes. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do, but it's clear that Obama would work down the deficits slightly better than Romney would.
1) Obama is not going to raise shit with Republicans controlling at least the House.
2) Increasing taxes will not reduce the deficit, it will simply go to more spending (wasteful spending at that).
3) If the economy rebounds because of a more pro business climate and pure focus on the economy, receipts will increase as income and capital gains rise.
4) Obama has shown to be nothing more than a deficit President who is only interested in populace support. Time for some real Hope and Change and that is called Mitt "mother fucking" Romney.
Love the Romney slick backed 'do, but I'm getting tired of the simple Obama look. Hopefully he'll grow out the fro or go with some Xzibit-style cornrows. Otherwise he can count on my vote for Romney's sleek chic style. Hope for change.
JeffSkilling, listen to yourself. I wouldn't want to support anyone who wants to raise taxes. Why the fuck would I want to give away my hard earned money so some piece of shit IRS agent gets to keep his job or some project that doesn't even affect me gets financed? We need someone with some "business sense" occupying the White House, not someone who bitches about people not paying their fair share. A fair share shouldn't amount to over 30 percent of anyone's income. Everyone needs a tax break and freedom from the shackles of the IRS which is being used to cut down on spending and investing with these high ass income and capital gains taxes.
Where did I say I support Obama? He is a fool. But you're a fool if you think Romney will be any different. Maybe his rhetoric will sound a little better, but rhetoric is not going to save this country.
Romney at least is offering lower taxes (20 percent reduction). In the spirit of the Tax Reform era of the 80s, at least he recognizes that less taxes is a good thing. Romney will be different in that sense. He will also have a Repub controlled House at least to help push it through. Obama, if reelected will be handcuffed because he won't have enough votes so what's the point of reelecting him? He won't get shit past Boehner.
In general, I agree with conservative policies and ideas. The part of voting for a Republican is the demographics of their followers. 60% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, which is retarded. Additionally, when I look at deep red vs deep blue states, I would much rather live in the blue states, which tells you something about the cultural values of the groups.
Romney is a northeastern liberal elite Republican. The last time we elected a RINO, he started two wars and deliberately outed a CIA operative. The RINO before that allowed the welfare state to expand and got impeached for the Watergate scandal.
We can't afford Romney. If it really comes down to it, I'm voting third party, and frankly, the Oblunderer is a peacenik version of Romney who will save us money on foreign policy.
In other news obamacare is now projected to cost 1.76 trillion dollars over 8 years. Seems like those guys really know what they are talking about.
Obama has added over 10 thousand new regulations in his 3 years in office. With a net cost of .5 trillion dollars per year to the economy.
The reality is that Romney is going to get destroyed. It doesn't matter who he's running against. A through and through Wall Street guy could not have been stuck with a more difficult time to run for national office than we have right now.
The U.S. budget deficit this year will be larger than projected while health-care costs aren’t growing as quickly as anticipated, according to the federal government.
The budget shortfall for 2012 will be $1.2 trillion, about $93 billion more than forecast two months ago, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-13/budget-deficit-to-total-1-2-tr…
Romney is Obama... think about it... same policies, different packaging...
Give the deep concern on WSO for the funds spent on your fellow citizens and fiscal position of the USA, I find it odd that few of you seem to care about how much your governments spend on your military adventures abroad.
Reading the posts on this and similar threads I can't help but come away with the impression that most WSO people are so trapped by their party's ideology its almost tribal... to the extent that they'd sing praises for one candidate over the other even when they end up with the same result with both candidates. I don't mean this as an attack, it's just an observation.
Yes Romney = Obama it's ridiculous how many people can't see that. 90% of this country is still trapped in the fake left-right paradigm that is perpetuated by tv actors in the media. No clearer is this evident than in the left's lack of outrage toward Obama's foreign policy. Obama is essentially an extension of Bush (suprise, suprise) in terms of foreign policy and yet the virulent rage that was spewed at Bush from the left for wars Obama now owns is gone. Obama stayed in Iraq much longer than he said he would, and would have stayed longer had they not kicked us out. He expanded our involvement in Afghanistan, Yemen, Uganda, and has got a record kill streak going on via his little drone wars. Not too mention he hasn't shut down Guantanamo. Oh yeah, he also killed an American citizen without due process. If any of that was Bush, the left would got nuts. Height of hypocrisy.
Romney is not Obama.
The President is only as important as the Congress. Romney will sign what a Republican Congress sends him. Obama won't. That is the difference. However moderate or flippy floppy Romney might be, the Congress will set the direction of things.
Why people focus on a figure head is beyond me. Obama has been incredibly ineffective, thanks to the Tea Party and Americans coming to their senses. Obama, as a result, it largely impotent and instead fuels class warfare, the only thing he learned in his past "career" as a community organizer.
Yes, because last time we had a republican congress and a republican president it really helped produce a very fiscally conservative set of policies....
Didn't realize this was a conversation on what past administrations have done. Glad to know that because Bush spent like a drunken sailor Republicans can never cut spending.
I agree with JeffSkilling on the above post. As it relates to wars and foreign policy, what most people fail to realize is that like Webster Tarpley said, the presidency is essentially a puppet post. It doesn't matter which party the president comes from. Both parties are controlled by the same forces, namely Bilderberg and CFR. I didn't expect Obama to do anything differently in terms of wars or foreign policy relating to Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama was selected by Brzenski and Kissinger because he would be a great way to assuage the "revolution" and hatred towards Bush/Cheney that was brewing in the country. His election prevented a massive "Occupy Washington" from exploding while at the same time ensuring that wars to obtain oil, etc. continue as planned. Most people fail to see that the true power structure rests with Bilderberg, CFR, Skull and Bones, etc. while the people are just fed a "choice" between two seemingly different candidates from two different parties but both parties have been compromised, most recently by the Citizens United case.
The only difference however, between Romney and Obama is that Romney will not stand for stupid capital gains tax increases and has offered to give everyone an income tax cut of 20 percent. In other words, graduated income tax rates will go down from a max of 35 percent to 27 percent at most. That's not a windfall, but it is preferable to Obama and his "pay the fair share" nonsense.
Romney isnt Obama, people compare the healthcare bill that passed in MA to the one that was passed by Obama. Major differences, in MA it was put on a ballot vote.
Romney will also have enough sense to ignore the tree huggers who don't want drilling in Anwar and other areas of the US and allow oil exploration in areas throughout the US, which may get gas prices down somewhat. Obama yields to a relative handful of environmentalists at the expense of 300 million other Americans who are sick of paying ~ 4 dollars a gallon for gas.
Romney will just listen to his advisers and start a war with Iran and drive the price of gas way higher than that.
I absolutely despise Obama but his energy policy is not responsible for $4 gas. You're listening to too much Hannity. You certainly can fault Obama for continuing a reckless fiscal and monetary policy that is the real reason for inflated oil prices, but the Keystone pipeline would be completely immaterial in terms of the world price of oil. That said, the Keystone pipeline should be approved, but it clearly won't solve our problems.
''Trio of polls show that Ron Paul is most viable Romney-alternative versus Obama
2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul polls better against President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup than both of his Mitt Romney-alternative rivals, according to a recent Bloomberg News national poll.
The Bloomberg finding follows a recent Rasmussen survey showing Paul to be the most competitive Romney alternative, and a recent PPP survey of Pennsylvania voters that reveals Paul to be stronger in a head-to-head matchup with Obama than Romney or Newt Gingrich.''
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/03/15/trio-of-polls-show-th…
King, if Obama starts a war with Iran I am going to expect you to do some massive ass kissing.
Fact of the matter is Obama, Gore, The Pope, a fucking spider monkey, all of them will end up bombing Iran or allowing Israel to bomb them.
Obama hasn't exactly been a dove president so I think this crap that Romney will start wars really isn't a viable excuse NOT to vote for him.
Was there any president in US history who attacked the civil liberties of the people as much as Obama?
Romney - White Obama - Black
BIG DIFFERENCE
Romney - White Obama - half White half Black
Bigger difference
Ya, I bet your mind is focked right now.
Whoa. We are post racial in American man....
Not so sure. As the economic situation deteriorates, they will reappear.
ANT -
I'm fine with drone campaigns and targeted campaigns to fight terror. I am not ok with going to war with Iran over a perceived "existential threat" to Israel. I'd be angry with anyone who started that, Obama or Romney. Romney has just positioned himself as much more hawkish than Obama.
Republicans are always more hawkish. I just think Obama will push this just like anyone else. I don't really think this has much to do with Israel as the US doesn't want the entire ME going nuclear.
Saudi Arabia will want nukes if Iran has them. And then everyone else will want them. Total and complete mess.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singlet…
http://www.youtube.com/embed/WAjH2VFH8lw
I think we should have a direct democracy, but only people with a college degree ,high IQ, intellect ect., or substantial net worth can vote.
Evolution will take care of the rest. Unconstitutional? Or completely necessary to stay at the top of the world?
Minus people who triple post.
This just popped up on Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/youll-never-believe-these-racist-anti-ob…
Way to elevate the discussion, Arkansas.
Doesn't count, post racial America
CBO: Obama budget deepens debt by $3.5 trillion
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-…
Never expected that much from Obama after 8 years of mismanagement by Bush. Mitt Romney's tax plan would significantly increase public debt. Ron Paul seems to be the best presidential candidate.
We better do something with this country or in 10 years time, the chinese scumbags will be telling us what to do.
Chances of war with Iran (aka WW3): Obama: 95% Romney: 100% Gingrich: 100% Santorum: 130% Paul: I think you know
Give me a reason not to short TLT.
Would love to hear bond folks comment on this.
I am not going to get into this too much but obviously there are many reasons to be long bonds just as there are many reasons to be short them. I personally like the short side better because the market looks technically broken, I think the economy is sustainably stronger then people give it credit for, I think valuations remain absurd even after this recent sell-off, etc...however its all a trade and I could change my mind tommorow. Arguments the other way include the large output gap (which I think is BS), the recovery being a fleeting illusion caused by unseasonably warm weather (I also think BS), the coming 2013 fiscal contraction, and the fact that we have a central bank that will do anything it can dream up to keep rates low (a very powerful counter-argument).
Lost with all this debating is the actual likely winner of the election. Romney will not beat Obama, plain and simple. All Obama has to do is link him to Wall Street Corruption and Bain. I can see the debates already: "How do you plan to increase jobs in this country, when your firm, Bain Capital, cost thousands of people their jobs in location x, y, and z." The public doesn't understand the value of PE, and as a previous poster mentioned, Wall Street backlash is as bad as it has ever been.
Obama #1 donor is Goldman Sachs.
Obama received the most political donations from wall street.
Well, Romney is offering a 20 percent reduction in taxes for everyone. On the tax front, he makes the most sense. Obama wants everyone to pay their "fair share." Hopefully, people vote their wallets.
Romney and Obama are one in the same. The only difference is their preference on taxes. They both supported an individual mandate for christ's sake. That's about as statist as it gets. This is no longer a Repub vs. Dem issue anymore. It's a big gov't vs. small gov't issue and the only candidate that's willing to shrink the gov't is Ron Paul.
Obama and Romney's top supporters are GS, JPM, CS, etc. Yes, you read that right, the mega-banks are supporting the top candidates from each side to buy the election b/c neither Romney nor Obama has any integrity. Obama is probably the fastest bought president ever. I lol'ed when he said he wouldn't take contributions from lobbyists and then like 2 weeks later, went back to them with his hands out. I really think everyone should have to pass a "citizens test" in order to vote. There's simply too many retards in this country with ignorant opinions for a decent and qualified candidate to get elected. The truth being grossly distorted by the media doesn't help either.
Bottom line is if you enjoy being lied to, vote for Obama / Romney. If not, vote Ron Paul. It's really that simple
Seems like war and the status quo on spending are too important for you romney/obama people.
The people that say you can never talk about the Bush years and Republican overspending are the same ones that still rant and rave about Rev wright and Obama giving a hug to a guy in law school.
"the past is only relevant if we're talking about Obama!" - neocons on this site.
The Republicans and Bush were wrong, fact. Just because they spent too much In the past doesn't mean it will be the same this time around. The tea party has pulled the Republicans back toward their fiscal roots and I think Romney will be more economically and fiscally focused than Obama. I'd fucking love RP to win, but we DO live in a Democracy and the majority of people in America can barely tie their own shoes, let alone actively engage in liberty and capitalism.
Romney is the lesser of two evils in my mind.
And courting with a racist and bigoted minister isn't so small thing. Any white candidate hanging out with a preache of hate would not get the same pass as Obama has.
Also, who is bringing up Wright in this at all? Can we stay on topic?
LULZ
Who could vote for Santorum in good conscience?
In good conscience? Probably him:
The 'top donors' for every candidate at the actual election stage (ie not the primaries) are usually banks. They want to have influence with the winner, whoever that might be.
This Romney = Obama is such dumb drivel. Better to have a moderate in power than someone on any extreme.
If Repubs take over the presidency and both houses, you really think it would be the same as if Obama was in power?
The Fed's bubbles: Nasdaq, Housing, Bank Stocks. Next up, US Treasuries. Only a matter of time before the jig is up.
^^^there are many explanations for the particiption rate including most powerfully demographic shifts and lower trend growth. I expect participation to continue to decline going forward even if we see a temporary bounce in the next few months. This is a secular shift occuring in even much healthier economies...pull up the chart of Canadian participation and it looks quite similar.
However, a declining participation rate is not bond market bullish...if the trend continues (the fed thinks it wont) it means that trend growth is lower and that the output gap is over-estimated....ie inflation will re-appear or has already re-appeared at lower levels of growth then we would normally assume. So while that participation rate may indicate that the economy is going to structurally grow at a slower pace it doesnt mean you should go out and buy fixed income.
^^ If you measure inflation correctly, the GDP is contracting.
Two Things: -The whole "the statistics are all bullshit" road is one I have been down before when i was much younger and less experienced. Whether its true or not is irrelevent, I trade the markets and the markets respond to the data. If you want to be good at this i suggest you forget the shadow stats stuff and leave it for zero hedge. Not that i necessarily disagree with you I just dont care.
-If you think inflation and therefore nominal growth is really that high it should make you more bearish US fixed income, not more bullish.
Well when they measure inflation, they use hedonics, substitutions, weighting and take out food & energy. If you want to be ahead of the curve, then you need to look at the ''real'' numbers (trend). Now sure, if you trade the markets, then short term, you have to go with official data.
I never said I was bullish on US fixed income. I've been moving out of the USD for years now.
So is the Dow peak all nominal growth? Or is the inflation built in?
Using the old CPI, current inflation is 9%.
Down-Gold ratio
I have been in this business for some time and I know of not one profitable trader who cares about what the "real cpi" is...this concept is something for 22 year olds who havent yet learned to distance their emotions from markets. I have no desire to be "ahead of the curve"...at least not as far ahead of it as you think you are, because its not profitable. You have to be on the side that is winning, not the side that fits your view of the World perfectly. Hedonic adjustments, chain weighting, and all the other nonsense is just a fact of life you have to learn to live with. Its like saying the "real price" of AAPL should be 150....thats fine but dealing in reality is more profitable.
Well sure, short term, if it is your job to bring in solid returns every month, you have to play the game.
All I'm saying is, people have to bear in mind that ultimately, economic fundamentals always win.
Once you have your own hedge fund and your investors understand that they can/will lose money for years at a time then you can go back to trading the shadow stats and your version of CPI. But not many traders have this luxury....in fact I dont think any do.
The only game in town is price. You can't trade labor force participation, you can't trade M0, 1, 2, 3, or any other monetary aggregate, you can't trade PPI or CPI, but you can trade e-minis and as long as I am making money, I really don't care why that is the case. If I can't get an economic idea across in under 30 seconds, chances are it isn't happening. I started trading when I was a freshmen in college with small money (you could leverage FX 400:1 when I first started so it was pretty easy) and failed to make money consistently until I graduated because I was so caught up in the legitimacy of economic data and all sorts of other noise. Trying to call tops and bottoms never really helped either. Ed Seykota said that people get what they want out of trading. If you want to make wild macroeconomic predictions that you can get all fancy with, just know that it is a very expensive hobby, and that your ideas are secondary from making money, so you won't be winning anytime soon.
As for the thread at hand, I don't have much of any interest in politics anymore, regardless of affiliation. I can't imagine Romney will be any different from Obama, and likewise the differences between Obama and McCain 4 years ago were negligent. In a world with multiple trillions of usd capital flows every day, the potus really doesn't matter that much between republican and democrat. I hate to sound like an illiterate rapper, but as long as you are getting paid, know how to keep making money, and do what you want with said dollars, the control of the Oval Office is of no concern. Actually, if I could see my parents and grandparents generation suffer from smaller social assistance programs in return for the perpetual wars they sent my friends to fight in, I would be pretty fucking happy.
...well done...having PM'd with you in the past I am very happy to here this stuff. That seykota quote is one of the all-time truths in trading. "Everyone gets what they want out of markets". People who trade based on things like "the real CPI" are generally really in the market for the intelectual challenge or because of a desire to seem smarter then others....no doubt they will get an intellectual challenge and eventually they may well get their smug bragging rights, but they will not be money makers.
Trading is always fun until the music stops. Which it will.
And in regards to the internet's favorite politician, Ron Paul, I do like him, but will not be donating because of the small odds he is dealing with at this point, and also since that shit is public record I do not want anyone from work looking me up and seeing that I donated to him because there are people that think he is satan's spawn, and I just do not want to deal with that shit at work. I have money to make, my whiskey appetite doesn't feed itself, and arguing with the senior economist about the merits of gold vs. fiat doesn't get me any closer to Friday night with a positive balance in my bank account.
How is anything I said factually untrue? I said very clearly that Romney will sign what is put in front of him by a Republican House and possibly Senate. Congress is where the power is, something that is clearly being illustrated right now with Obama's inability to do anything.
Yes, Defense has to be reduced, but there needs to be less regulation or at least less unneeded regulation. As the economy rebounds, tax receipts will increase along with it. Combine that with a reduction in spending and you have a start.
Republicans are hawks. That is what they are. Faulting Romney for not wanting to gut military spending is like faulting a dog for pissing on a fire hydrant. Also, we know Obama isn't going to gut defense either.
Listen, I get it, I would love RP to be President. Unfortunately, I just don't see a nation where 50% pay no Federal taxes, where everyone has their own favorite special interest, that kind of nation is not going to be thrilled with Ron Paul talking about personal responsibility, less government help and support, more competition, etc.
Romney is less shitty than Obama. IMO
Yes we all agree that romney will sign what the republican congress (assuming one exists) puts in front of him. You have yet to explain why this will be any different then the last time we had a republican congress and a republican president. It was a disaster for anyone who actually believed in conservative principles (as opposed to people like you who just root for republicans like they are your home football team). The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
When the music stops I will change my mind as I have in the past as evidenced by my track record. By the time the music stops you will likely be out of business. I know so many more people who lost their jobs betting on the housing crisis then those who made money on it (i did)...
The guys at Fund A were right (even with regards to timing), but didn't get paid... the guys at Fund B were wrong (comparatively), but are in a better position career wise & monetarily. This is what makes investing difficult and is one of the reasons why the asset gathering game is such a big driver of firm/career longevity. Work life is even more complex than this stylised example. It's very hard to be in this business by just being "right"... This is assuming you are right to begin with.
2nd Bondarb.
Bush was a disaster for small government conservatives.
If it's Romney vs. Obama, I am voting for Obama and praying we keep our majority in the House.
Why would anyone vote for Obama when you know he wants you to pay your "fair share" of taxes? It's too hard to get a job, work hard on a job and then the IRS takes a big bite out of your pay? Romney is at least offering a 20 percent reduction in taxes and will have a Republican house to push this through.
As a Finance major and a believer in less taxes, I find Obama's thinking to be an affront to every person who goes out everyday and works hard for their salaries/income.
Like it or not, while passive multilateralism is not as good as non-interventionism, it is a much cheaper foreign policy than unilateralism. And if we have a Republican congress, we can control the purse-strings on domestic policy anyways.
I do not want to spend the next 40 years of my career paying off the war with Iran. Politically, it's a lot easier to default on our infrastructure and healthcare spending debt through inflation than it is to default on our liabilities for caring for injured veterans and their families.
1- Republicans are more likely to lose the house than gain the senate. Let's watch and see. 2- If you intend to shrink the deficit, you MUST do both - raise taxes and cut benefits. Think grand bargain. Yes, the one the republicans rejected.
Funny thing - I'm not such a big fan of Obama, the difference between Romney and Obama is almost non-existent. Apart from the fact that Romney is ONLY interested in getting a tax cut for the rich at the expense of the middle class or whoever. Everyone should indeed pay their fair share, whether the banker, the hedge-fund manager or the plumber/teacher, everyone should pay their fair share. A system where rich folks aren't paying as much as the middle class isn't a democracy, it's a feudalism.
The biggest recipients of government spending/waste is the military. Nobody (apart from Ron Paul) will even go near that.
And by the way, that poll was flawed. In case you were wondering.
Labor force participation rate has declined because technology has made it such that what once required two people, now only requires one.
IlliniProgrammer: I'm aware that now the president controls whether we have "wars" overseas without any intervention from Congress. I'm just not interested in 1/3 of my money going to garbage, whether that's to spend money here or overseas. People fail to realize that the IRS was created because of the income tax. The income tax was only created because the Fed, in 1913, with a handful of senators on the floor in December of that year created the Federal Reserve Act. That Act authorized, unconstitutionally, the creation of a private bank that was designed to lend money to our own government. Woodrow Wilson signed the Act without reading it and as he lamented, he had destroyed his own country.
This is because the "Fed" would later create paper money out of thin air and lend it to our own government. Once the debtload became so large, they had to create the income tax. The Fed is illegal. Only Congress has the power to make or create money. The Fed, by hijacking this power from Congress created the need for an income tax. Essentially, the income tax is the enslavement of the entire country to the bankers who own the Fed because the tax pays back the interest on the debt that the Fed has issued to us.
When people like Obama talk about paying our "fair share" in taxes, it makes me sick. There never really was a need for the tax in the first place without the Fed. Thomas Jefferson said that bankers were more of a threat than standing armies because if the people ever allowed a private bank to control monetary policy, they would deprive the people of the land their forefathers had conquered. That is why the founders did not want anyone but Congress to create currency.
The last president to challenge the Fed was John F. Kennedy. Kennedy wanted to stop the Fed from lending to the US and instead issued his own currency backed up by silver. The money was later recalled and ever since then, the taxpayer has been a slave to the income tax. Of course, about six months after Kennedy signed his executive order in re the new money and prohibition from borrowing from the Fed, he was assassinated.
Romney is not asking for a full repeal of the tax like Ron Paul. At least he is asking for a reduction in the tax, which of course is too high.
People work too hard to have the Fed picking their pockets via the IRS and the last thing we need is someone in office who doesn't understand that.
[insert standing ovation]
Great post. Few realize that the IRS was created only to securitize the loans made to the Federal Reserve. Also, the 16th amendment was never officially ratified. 1913 was the year America died.
The part about the Fed and Income Tax being unconstitutional is great and I gave u a SB. But someone please tell me again what Mitt Romney has to do with either of these ideas? Romney has never questioned the validity of the income tax and he has praised the federal reserve system and Bernanke personally. His record and the record of the party he represents is pretty clear...big spending both home and abroad. The numbers dont lie, the rhetoric does. Dont be fooled by the fact that the top marginal rate was lowered slightly under Bush...he raised all of our forward taxes massively by running up a huge and unsustainable debt that at some point will be paid back either through higher taxes or through the inflation tax. I see no actual evidence, aside from rhetoric very similar to Bush himself in 2000 and 2004, that mitt Romney will be any different.
I would say vote for ron paul but that ship has now sailed. Just forget about voting and save yourself some time.
Hahaha. Come on kids, you need to know your history IN FULL.
Before personal taxes, the government raised money by issuing a HIGH levy against imports. Equivalent levies were also issued against US exports by other countries. Feel free to imagine the change from personal taxes to taxes on the vast majority of US businesses that import goods and services from other countries, and watch how quickly this is reciprocated by other countries.
Now as yourself "Do I feel lucky?"
Regarding the FED, you MUST have some sort of FED as a country, you simply must. At best, you want it changed from a privately owned institution to a publicly owned one. Having none is a recipe for disaster.
The country, and the world at large has become too much of a complicated place to return to what used to be, accept it.
Broaden the base. Kill all loopholes. See how quickly the coffers get filled.
It won't happen though. Big government republicans and more recently democrats, are both too glad to funnel government funds to their special interests in return for campaign donations.
A central bank is in no way a MUST for a country. Why would it be a such a disaster if we didn't have a secretive committee of deluded academics sitting in an ivory tower in Washington determining the price of money, monetizing government debt, interfering with the pricing mechanism, bailing out bad actors, creating the business cycle, and countless other shenanigans? Seriously, why do we need these clowns?
The US didn't have a central bank from 1836-1913, a period of monumental wealth creation and the birth of the middle class. Hell, we had an industrial revolution without a central bank. Also, the US experienced a prolonged period of deflation which coincided with record prosperity, explain that Keynesians.
This is a shit-hurricane.
Oh man, Trader Daily is simply making truth rain from the skies.
This concept that we need to pay more in taxes is only valid if one assumes we are fully efficient and have bare minimum spending. There is so much fat in the budget that you would need to tap the strategic reserve to keep the chainsaws fueled while cutting this blubber.
"the Obama administration's budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays for 2012, for a deficit of $1.101 trillion."
Ok, so that means we need to cut 1T this year to maintain the deficit and we need to cut more or increase revenues to pay it down.
You do that by shutting down agencies, ending the wars, making social security for the poorest and most disabled. You start laying off Federal workers, scaling back pensions, wringing efficiency out of every aspect of government.
Ending the wars, shutting down the Dept of Education, reducing homeland security, incorporating the DoE with the DoD, means testing SSI and scaling it back, bring efficiency to every other agency and you have 0.5T in the blink of an eye.
Yeah, this is a quick swag and completely politically infeasible, but don't come as ask me to pony up more money when it is easy to cut spending substantially.
If the government truly wants to increase revenues they will stop the manipulation through the tax code. End the tax deductibility of mortgage interest, get rid of the child tax credit, stop allowing interest on student loans to be deducted, eliminate green tax credits, on and on and on. That will increase revenues without increasing tax rates. It will also make things much more fair (in the real sense, not Obama sense) and it will increase our freedoms by telling the government to F off and stop bribing our complicity through the IRS.
Well Bondarb, Ron Paul would have been more preferable on the income tax issue. Obviously, I'd love for the IRS to be shut down and the income tax. That would be much more desirable. However, Obama hasn't offered ANY relief whatsoever. Instead, he wants people to pony up. Again, at least Romney would try to allay the high taxes somewhat and get away from paying a max of 35 percent. Instead of the max tax of 35 percent, he wants to bring it down to 27 percent. That's a step in the right direction.
Obama also buys into the class warfare nonsense that has been brewing in the country. He and Warren Buffett actually want to force others to submit to, because they are in a high bracket, to give away more of their money to a wasteful budget. Tax cuts alone do not create inflation. Wasteful spending without restraint and without gold to back up the cash creates inflation. Neither of these issues are being addressed.
Really? Will he (Romney)? How then will he address this deficit that the republicans love so much to complain about? Oh, he won't? I see, like GW, he'll rack up debt by slashing taxes without cutting spending. And then next time a democrat comes in, y'all will complain about the deficit.
One more thing - Class warfare has been going on for AGES. The middle class has taken a beating. Then we complain and suddenly it's class warfare?
Dude, you need to read the facts and stop with this Fox news propaganda
Dude...get it thru ur head...a tax cut while increasing spending is not a tax cut. It is just a deferral of taxes into the future. You will pay for these deficits one way or another at some point.
And the class warfare thing is complete nonsense. What are you talking about Obama wants to "submit" people to class warfare? Obama has been in office for 3 years and I have not been "submitted" to anything...my taxes are the same also. You need to get over the rhetoric and focus on substance. On real substance the candidates are so similar it is not worth even caring about.
Too much fox news, but he doesn't get it. As I said earlier, the rich have been getting away with murder for a while now on the backs of the middle class. Someone points it out and that's class warfare?
Well, personally I'd prefer that both get addressed, but as ANT so eloquently pointed out, it isn't politically feasible to make the necessary cuts. We truly need a president who will eliminate any and all waste the way a private equity firm would. But people are so afraid of relatively few government workers losing their jobs that are unnecessary that politicians are afraid of making the necessary job cuts. The Pentagon's budget and DoD could be cut drastically. In fact, I've seen where a decorated officer has said so. Much Pentagon spending is wholly stupid but the taxpayer gets the bill.
If the federal govt were run like a PE firm runs a portfolio company, the budget would be reduced greatly.
Actually, we need to simply cut taxes and run up a deficit. I 100% support this. If you think for one moment you are going to be able to restructure this country, cut entitlements, etc without a crisis you are nuts.
You need to create a live or die situation before the mob will accept any cuts or changes. We are all to blame.
Look at what happens when anyone, either side of the isle, attempts to try and reform social security? Or Defense or anything else. People go bat shit insane.
Just like a fat person who eats until they have to be cut out of the house, so will this country consume and consume until the point comes where they HAVE to feel the pain.
That is an interesting thought sir.
BUT!
I still subscribe to a modicum of fairness. I want taxes to be relatively equal for all. And I want death taxes increased somewhat.
Social security is HEALTHY, you and I have discussed this before I believe. Benefits however need to be sorted out.
And you're right - the politicians play politics, period. We should also have term limits on senators and legislators I feel, weed out the professional politicians, etc
haha,,,sounds great. Go to Greece for a preview of how it ends....it will not be a fun way to re-balance and nobody on this board will be better off this way especially someone like you who I believe is a recent graduate from school. Unemployment for people under 30 is like 50%ish.
Actually - the US is considerably more productive than Greece. There are more jobs per capita here than in Greece. And we don't have that massive german/uk style benefit culture sucking the life out of the economy.
Bottom line - Greece was producing fuck all, and paying out a small fortune. We're paying out considerably, but at least we're producing. I think.
One more thing - the pain of Greece is bound for our shores sooner or later. Just wait for it.
No where did I say it sounds great, it just sounds realistic. If you think passing increased taxes or broadening the base is something anyone who has to get elected can feasibly do you might be on something.
Yeah, I would love to see responsible government, reasonable cuts across the board and tax being about income generation for the government instead of manipulation through the tax code. Unfortunately any time you attempt to do anything people go ape shit.
Who is to blame? We all are. We elect retards, we demand things knowing we cannot afford them, we tolerate this forever. What can you do? Democracy is its own worst enemy at times because it requires individuals to vote against their own best interests.
IMO, the only way you get people to vote against their own best interests in a time of crisis.
I'm not sure I agree with that mate. The general populace today is better educated, and better able to make a decent living in global terms than they were in the '13s. They have better access to healthcare, and to decent food and shelter.
I'm sorry I find it difficult to accept that.
I still love this rich against the middle class shit.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Just look at those stats. I am sorry, but just because we can milk a group of people dry doesn't mean it is right to do so. This behavior that is taking hold of this country, to take from those who have more than we do, is sickening and a perfect example of mob mentality.
We have free education for all, low cost state schools, free medical for the old and poor, social safety nets galore. All paid for by the top 50% of this country, with the majority coming from the top 10%. To say that the rich are taking advantage of group that pays nothing, enjoys safety and freedom from a country that the poor around the world would die to come to, is a fucking joke.
Yes, the rich could pay a ton more. No doubt. The guy down the block has 3 cars and could do without one. Whether I steal his car or elect a politician to steal it with the government approval still makes me a thief.
If you are going to rob someone at least have the sack to do it yourself. Don't passive aggressively steal from others.
Ant.
See, my problem with you is that I feel you know better. You keep playing these fox news-like tricks, smoking mirrors. You're too well informed to spew this right wing shite. The 1% for the most part pay their fair share, but the others simply sieve the system. We all saw Mitt Romney's tax returns, the fact that he pays less taxes as a percentage than I do is frankly, quite offensive to me.
I just posted a link which is gets the information directly from the IRS.
Avg Tax Rate Top 1% - 24.01%
Tax rate of the top 50-25% - 5.58%
Maybe in your case you pay a higher percentage than Romney does, but one person is just that, one person. The IRS data is pretty clear and it clearly shows that the rich ARE paying their fair share. If you want more revenue you should do what is really fair and eliminate all the deductions which favor one group over another.
As Newt Gingrich said, ppl are angry over Romney paying 15 percent in taxes. Instead, you should be trying to vote for someone who is going to bring YOUR taxes down to 15 percent too. Not trying to raise his.
As Newt Gingrich said, ppl are angry over Romney paying 15 percent in taxes. Instead, you should be trying to vote for someone who is going to bring YOUR taxes down to 15 percent too. Not trying to raise his.
Social Security is HEALTHY? My grandpa worked all his life and averaged probably 100k/yr. He paid the S.S. tax and is now getting paid roughly 30k/yr from the gov. My grandma never worked a day in her life and she will get 15k/yr for the rest of her life. How is that fair? We pay 11% for FICA, but we get shit back in returns. People are living longer, living expenses are going up, and the population keeps increasing, but still half pay taxes. There is absolutely no use for S.S. unless you want a free ride...So basically the rich lose a ton of their income in order to pay for the poor. Isn't this socialism? Why can't everyone just find a financial adviser or use some common sense?
ANYONE can produce better returns than what S.S. produces for us. Even with bonds!
I did not say it was fair. Social Security is NOT a pension, it's kind of a safety net, remember that. Everyone pays into it, everyone draws the same amount. If you earn more and pay in more, the odds are that you've got other savings as well.
And don't give me that bullshite about "ANYONE". If SS had been privately run, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago.
I think S.S is the most successful safety net this country has produced. Without S.S. the number of old people in the streets would be mind-boggling.
I did not say it's perfect. I say it works. I say it doesn't contribute to the deficit. I say it's not bankrupt.
The only thing I ever agreed with Rick Perry on is that Social Security is a ponzi scheme.
Here's what I say, without a population explosion as well as a massive loss of wage/value, it could be self-sustaining. Unfortunately there's no way to plan towards the future in terms of how money loses value. So yeah, at the moment it is indeed a ponzi scheme.
Dude, social security is on the verge of banckruptcy. Everyone needs to learn how to take care of themselves. People don't bust their asses to be forced by the government to give handouts. If anything, we should be using that money to educate people about personal finance for free (as a requirement). It's an investment sure to pay off.
And yes, anyone can learn how to invest... There are 12 year-olds who can do it.
Dude - social security is currently running close to a 2 Trillion dollar surplus. Social security is NOT a handout - people pay into it. And fuck this shite about investing, all that happens when you invest is that hedge funds and large financial institutions mess up the incredibly rigged market, and you're left holding scrap paper. Even real estate that used to be the one reliable market has now been plundered by the "market".
Don't be deceived. It's a rigged market. And now, they want social security, so that the large financial corporations loot all the profits, the tax payer is left holding the bill, and the politicians get financial contributions.
You think you can learn how to invest wisely? Really? hahaha.
No one should ever retire. This concept of retirement is relatively new and a scam for retirement homes and cruise lines. People should work their entire lives.
SSI should be rolled back to what it was originally for, widows, people who are crippled, etc. If you are able bodied and have a job, keep working. If you want to retire at 60 you save your pennies and fund it yourself.
If you ramped retirement up to 70 and made it means tested you would be fair to those truly in need and magically fix SSI. Why is Warren Buffet getting social security? It was meant to be a safety net, not a national pension.
"No one should ever retire."
I think reading that may be the nail in the coffin for me in terms of debating these issues on here. I just don't even...there is no point.
If you want to retire when you are still able to work why the fuck should I pay for that? If you want to squirrel away money, feel free to cash out at 60. Don't expect me to pay for an able bodied person to sit on their ass.
I have a solution...
Shoot anyone who is too old to work.
Comments like this out of people like you, who are still in college and haven't spent any meaningful time working, are so laughable.
Yeah, let's force 75 year old grandmothers to go back to work because they are "physically able."
1.) What fucking jobs are they going to take? We have 8.3% unemployment and are having trouble finding jobs for able-bodied men as it is.
2.) Life is, in many ways, a miserable marathon and a struggle. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have the brains and work ethic to have careers in fields like finance are a lucky few. We are in a position to make great money and set ourselves up nicely later in life. Not everyone is so fortunate.
3.) Is this really what we are coming down to? Arguing that fucking old as shit people should be forced to work? I mean, seriously?
Spoiler alert, folks, we're all gonna be dead one day. No amount of money can stave off the inexorable flow of time. Last thing you or anyone else is going to want to be doing when you're 75 years old and a grandparent is go to work in a workplace that no longer needs you, you're going to want to spend your waning years with the ones that you love.
People chose not to work because the government will take care of them. If you don't believe that, you've got another thing coming.
Put them on a boat and float them out to sea...
Like what ANT said, if you didn't save / invest enough, you don't deserve to retire.
Just like if you don't study enough, you shouldn't get into a good school. If you don't work hard enough, you shouldn't get a promotion.
If I want to help the poor, I'll donate to a charity.
I love this crap sometimes. People used to work on farms from sun up to sun down and live long and productive lives. This idea that it is healthy to go from a productive human being to sitting in a rocking chair boggles my mind.
The fact that we now have massive amounts of people checking out at age 62 and then being on the dole for 20+ years is ridiculous.
This is the shit that always happens. We start with a simple safety net for people and next thing you know it gets expanded and rolled out and before you know it we have this albatross ponzi scheme.
LOL
We shouldn't force someone to work because one person thinks, but we should force a nation to pay money for something that someone else THINKS is correct.
Nothing but forcing a personal opinion on another person through the guise of government force. So sad.
ANT -
1.) I'm all for raising the S.S. age within a reasonable range. Make it 67. No issue with that at all. People are healthier for longer. I'm also more than ok with means-testing. It just makes sense.
2.) With that said, I don't really give a shit if people used to "work on farms from sun up to sun down." People also used to barter for goods and services and live off the land. The world has changed. Unless you want a fuck ton of elderly people living in poverty, we're going to have to figure out a way to make social security and medicare work for the long haul.
1) Fine, we agree.
2) Bad analogy. People used to and still can work until they are old. This idea that we should sit on our asses for 20 years is bullshit. Also, the retirement life people have at the lower end is probably worse than when they were working. Nothing like not having a job, not being productive, not earning money and having a self worth.
Once again, I am not saying you have to work til you die or else fuck off. I am saying that if you are able bodied you should save your own money if you want to retire when you are 60. If you don't save or make do you will have to work longer.
SSI got fucked when it become a national pension fund. You said it yourself, people are healthier, working longer, etc. Why incentivize people to check out when they can still work?
And why should everyone get SSI. I am not on welfare, nor will I ever probably need it, yet I still pay for it and think it is necessary. I have no problem paying for old people welfare when they get crippled, sick, widowed, whatever. It is a safety net that keeps things cohesive.
Problem is this isn't a net, it is a massive program that cannot be touched because everyone benefits from it now.
LMAO... If i walk in to McDonald's today I guaranfuckintee I will walk out with a job. It's not that hard to get a job. People want 50k/year, so they are holding out. There are jobs, but people don't like them.
A job is a job. We aren't talking about your precious PE bud.
Right, I'm sure a 20 year old college student could get a job flipping burgers or working a register in McDonalds. You're young and presumably physically able. Not an elderly person. But, yeah, if you want to get rid of social security so elderly people have to compete in the sluggish low-skill end of the job market, you can keep dreaming.
We aren't debating the abilities of 20 / 30 / 40 or even 50 somethings to get menial jobs. We're talking about fucking 70 year olds and up. Get your head out of your ass.
And what rock were they under when they worked for 40 years and didn't save a damn thing for their own retirement. Walk your ass over to a FA's office and open an IRA, but don't expect me to be your safety net when you failed to plan for the inevitable.
What is sad? Not wanting fucking 75 year olds to work (non-existent) menial jobs until they drop dead?
People like you advocate for insanely expensive hawkish foreign policies that cost us, literally, trillions of dollars and give us questionable results, but act like you're being stabbed in the back when it comes to ensuring that elderly people in this country can live out their final years without having to struggle.
Truly spoken like someone who lives in a bubble and has never faced any hardship whatsoever.
.
Connor -
1.) Yes, people generally are dumb and don't make intelligent decisions, let alone think about things on any sort of long-term scale. It's easy to forget this when in a solid university environment or the bubble of a financial services firm. You can imagine that this is not true, but it is.
2.) Your parents gave you the knowledge to do things the right way...that's a leg up in and of itself. Good for you. Be happy that you're able to take care of yourself and manage your money appropriately. Not everyone is in a position to do this and not everyone has parents / mentors to teach them to do this. There are numerous factors, many out of one's control, that prevent them from understanding or implementing these sorts of things.
3.) Get the chip off of your shoulder. The whole "I WORK HARD SO EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD SUFFER IF THEY DON'T" attitude will rub people the wrong way. There are plenty of people like me in finance, and we'll not take kindly to this kind of attitude in interviews or in the work place.
Trust me... if I knew you in real life, you wouldn't know much about my political views. Some things are better discussed when the two parties are anonymous.
ANT - I don't even think we are THAT far apart. Because, I honestly don't think you think that old as shit people should have to work until literally physically unable. At no point have I advocated for people to retire without issue at 62. I do not agree with that at all. Add five years to that and means-test and a lot of issues are alleviated.
Maybe it's the nihilist in me, but I think people who make it that far in the struggle of life should be able to at least "relax" and "enjoy" their final years, not just because they're too fucking brittle to work, but because...fuck it, they're almost dead.
Dude, we are not far apart at all.
I am not talking about a slave system filled with old people. I am simply saying that too many able bodied people retire too early. That is the issue, right? Too many people on a system with too little paying into it.
So what do you do? You can temporarily fix things by increasing the amount of people paying into the system, but that will not last because eventually they will retire.
You can raise the retirement age though. You can means test it so only people in need get the benefit. I mean that is the issue right. We all don't want to see grandma slaving away at a fast food joint.
So what is the real, emotional reason we want SSI. Because it is a welfare program for old people. Well fine, lets truly make it that. Get well off people off SSI. Increase the age and make it for those truly in need.
The country went wrong when it fled from the principles that made it great (the constitution) by creating entitlement programs such as SS and medicare (list goes on and on), and both just so happen to be unconstitutional...and don't give me some liberal judge's interpretation on how these ENTITLEMENT programs are your right. These are socialist programs, bottom line. They should, at the very most, be for the most indigent people that can barely eat. Definitely need a means test that is enforced harshly (i've seen people on medicaid that had brand new cars but that's completely another story).
When the gov't creates these programs, it takes all accountability away from individuals. Feel like eating that Big Mac and having the shake, too? Go ahead, good ole Uncle Sam will take care of your medical bills when you turn 65. Oh and we, the gov't, expect you to pay 2.9% of your income (unlimited ceiling) for the rest of your life into it, (unless of course you're part of the 50% that doesn't pay anything). Yep, that's right, even if you don't need it b/c you planned ahead. Same with SS privatization. If it that happens, in 30 years, there will be large % of the population who were irresponsible and didn't plan at all (imagine that). At that point, there would be homeless everywhere screaming for the gov't to save them b/c that's all they've ever known. What then? It would be bad.
In a perfect world, private SS would be great. Problem with privatizing SS and medicare (will eventually happen) is that if they suddenly did away with these programs, people, as ANT said, would go bat shit crazy. There would be rioting, etc, etc. So many people now are dependent on the gov't whether it be for medical bills, retirement income, job security not necessarily even working for the gov't, maybe just a material amount of your business is gov't contracts, that if they shrank the gov't size drastically, all hell would break loose. It would have to be very gradual. But, imo, we are past the point of no return. We are the equivalent of Greece with higher productivity and an unlimited printing press (for now, wait until the majority goes to different reserve currency) and eventually, it will catch up with us. When that happens, there won't be a European Union to save us.
I think ANT nailed it. We're going to keep kicking the can down the road until fit hits the shan. When the real crisis begins is when things will finally reform for the better (hopefully).. if we don't destroy ourselves in the process.
But hey, the gov't cares about us!
Aut rerum et iste rerum in voluptatem. Natus eum molestiae debitis fugit. Quaerat officia officiis architecto incidunt velit. Ut provident consequatur aut praesentium.
Quisquam sed quasi quod omnis eveniet eaque. Repellat fugit est doloremque culpa vel est aliquid. Velit sed omnis corporis vel eaque. Qui maiores voluptatem libero consectetur quas vel ex.
Earum et optio ratione dolorem qui quibusdam. Incidunt magnam ipsam tempora accusantium id.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Praesentium corporis saepe eum numquam. Alias accusantium aut quis harum laudantium. Iusto ipsam quaerat corporis eligendi. Sed neque natus cum sunt qui reprehenderit.
Debitis et omnis et hic autem. Ut rem ut occaecati. Qui dignissimos nulla voluptatem molestias provident.
Doloribus perspiciatis consequatur temporibus enim ducimus ea neque deleniti. Sed libero voluptatum cumque sit. Dicta totam est voluptates ratione corporis animi.
Ea accusamus iste assumenda et voluptates. Quam nisi rerum facere ex et id. Et culpa quam dicta corrupti et possimus itaque quas.
Molestiae quia ratione enim vel. Sit quos odit consequatur sit corporis. Deserunt enim est dolores in consequatur. Repellendus dolore recusandae ex. Facere earum cumque vel voluptas in numquam nulla quibusdam.
Iusto ea impedit sit voluptatem totam. Iusto qui non repellat. Perferendis debitis nihil rerum odio quisquam veritatis omnis.
Aut voluptas et explicabo voluptates sed. Blanditiis eaque omnis dolore vel quod. Ab consequatur magni aspernatur recusandae. Nulla corporis totam quo consequatur sequi. Libero praesentium natus molestiae dignissimos maxime qui et.
Modi praesentium ut molestias suscipit magni. Sequi expedita totam id dolor quae quia qui. Quas ducimus laboriosam velit amet impedit enim. Et quaerat dolor vel officia iure recusandae exercitationem est. In repudiandae quia est repudiandae at mollitia quo. Illo ut repellendus dolores molestias molestiae et provident. Nesciunt magnam sed iste rerum.
Et id recusandae nihil harum facere. Sapiente illo laudantium voluptas molestiae ad quia odit. Architecto cum inventore molestiae et optio. Sequi iure cumque amet nam earum dolores. Qui iure alias eum ipsa dolores id.
Sit molestiae est voluptas nulla eveniet perspiciatis excepturi. At ullam vitae illo est doloribus omnis consequatur. Officia expedita tempora hic voluptas est. Optio similique veritatis quia.
Libero voluptatem ratione commodi numquam. Eius non deserunt nemo odio necessitatibus omnis reprehenderit. Ut necessitatibus ut quidem libero. Et nisi ea a neque ut quo. Qui perspiciatis beatae repellendus ut vel reiciendis. Aperiam occaecati voluptatem facilis cumque aliquam illo fugiat. Nulla numquam reiciendis dicta sint esse vel omnis.
Dicta est numquam nisi asperiores consequatur enim a. Est assumenda fugit dolore ratione ut similique nesciunt. Qui modi dolor qui voluptates necessitatibus.
Et corrupti sed eum. Rerum debitis dolorem ab possimus amet. Illo ut dolores magni ut. Eum et quaerat occaecati ea quae maiores.
Ut architecto assumenda magnam minima id nesciunt. Molestiae nam esse esse consequuntur reiciendis. Architecto a soluta tempora vero consequuntur tempore. Omnis totam voluptas est consequuntur dolorem et. Perferendis nihil sunt qui.
Quas quasi cumque aut magni corporis aut quia. Et recusandae ut veniam et sed est. Voluptate blanditiis autem sapiente delectus dolores. Ullam aut tempore velit sit optio quae.