Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Economy was already substantially improving.

Real GDP increased 2.4% in 2009, and all the major stock indices improved throughout the year. Though there has been a bit of a dip of late.

Frazzled wrote:
The economy has to substantially improve, with strong unemployment improvement, at least six months beforehand.

The economy is already doing better, its unemployment that's the lynch pin. That's the way that most people engage with the economy on a day to day basis.

Frazzled wrote:
Remember the Republicans were trounced in Congressional elections prior, just as the Democrats are about to be trounced in 2010.

I thought we were talking about the Presidency?

agnosto wrote:
And the fact that we import too much. The massive trade imbalance due to our insatiable appetite for cheap, Chinese, goods is going to be our downfall.

The trade deficit is a function of our national reliance on credit, which is itself a function of aggregated costs; ranging from education, to healthcare, to housing. We export nearly as much as China does.

Fateweaver wrote: I'm fairly certain that the Presidents income is not taxed. I don't know that but I know military pay isn't taxed so wouldn't surprise me that the Presidents own coffers aren't taxed.

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Regarding the President or the military.

Fateweaver wrote: If that's the case I can see why most Presidents don't see tax increases as a bad thing. If it doesn't hurt you financially to do something you'll do it.

So by that reasoning, since it doesn’t hurt you financially, I’m sure you molest children and puppies on a regular basis?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Economy was already substantially improving.

Real GDP increased 2.4% in 2009, and all the major stock indices improved throughout the year. Though there has been a bit of a dip of late.

Frazzled wrote:
The economy has to substantially improve, with strong unemployment improvement, at least six months beforehand.

The economy is already doing better, its unemployment that's the lynch pin. That's the way that most people engage with the economy on a day to day basis.

If you really believe that you're...getting you're information from the internet. GDP growth was below population growth and driven by Government growth. real company profits were driven by expense reductions, not sales increases. My clients are predicting revenues same to same. My clients are not predicting employment improvement in the US in the next twelve months. however they are hedging their bets and most have raised the prospect of either a second dip or just a stagnation through 2011 unless something changes.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fateweaver wrote: I'm fairly certain that the Presidents income is not taxed. I don't know that but I know military pay isn't taxed so wouldn't surprise me that the Presidents own coffers aren't taxed.

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Regarding the President or the military.

Fateweaver wrote: If that's the case I can see why most Presidents don't see tax increases as a bad thing. If it doesn't hurt you financially to do something you'll do it.

So by that reasoning, since it doesn’t hurt you financially, I’m sure you molest children and puppies on a regular basis?

FYI military income is not used as a basis for income when April 15th rolls around. NONE of my friends pay income tax on their military pay come April 15th. It might be taxed monthly when they get paid but I know it's not used to determine eligibility and what not for assistance programs. I'm going by what they said and my friends would have no reason to lie to me about how military pay and taxes work.

Nice comment about me molesting children. Consider yourself reported. Shuma I can handle attacking me because frankly he is a nobody regarding dakka. I expect a little more respect and maturity from the mods.

Good day.

I pointed out the ridiculous error in your reasoning by using an extreme example. If you don't want people to point out the terrible flaws in your reasoning, you need to make major changes to your posting habits.

Re: military pay-

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/allhands/bltaxes.htm

You have, as usual, no idea what you're talking about.

See thats your mistake Fateweaver. If you only knew how we win our moderator positions you would completely understand. Now I don't understand the relationship between timed eating events and internet forum moderation, but hey I don't ask.

Nice comment about me molesting children. Consider yourself reported. Shuma I can handle attacking me because frankly he is a nobody regarding dakka. I expect a little more respect and maturity from the mods.

I would be considerably more insulting, but I just got off a 10 day ban.

Frazzled wrote: If you really believe that you're...getting you're information from the internet. GDP growth was below population growth and driven by Government growth.

GPD growth was 2.4% on the year. Population growth was roughly 1%, .088% if you listen to the Census Bureau, 1.2% if you listen to the Heritage Institute. It was due primarily to government expenditure, but the government is a participant in the economy, whether you want it to be or not.

Frazzled wrote:
real company profits were driven by expense reductions, not sales increases.

So, the same as most of the last decade then?

Frazzled wrote:
My clients are predicting revenues same to same. My clients are not predicting employment improvement in the US in the next twelve months.

Neither am I.

Frazzled wrote:
however they are hedging their bets and most have raised the prospect of either a second dip or just a stagnation through 2011 unless something changes.

Stagnation seems more likely, and would follow the mold of prior recessions.

Frazzled wrote:See thats your mistake Fateweaver. If you only knew how we win our moderator positions you would completely understand.

Why do I have this picture in my mind of Frazz and the wiener dogs(all leathered up and armed with some sort of dog tusk's of course) vs Yakface and his minions.

2 men (+dogs and minions) entah 1 man and minions layve.

GG

GPD growth was 2.4% on the year. Population growth was roughly 1%, .088% if you listen to the Census Bureau, 1.2% if you listen to the Heritage Institute. It was due primarily to government expenditure, but the government is a participant in the economy, whether you want it to be or not.
***No thats not what the major companies are saying behind closed doors boyo.

real company profits were driven by expense reductions, not sales increases.

So, the same as most of the last decade then?
***Again, no thats not reality. Sorry.

Frazzled wrote:
My clients are predicting revenues same to same. My clients are not predicting employment improvement in the US in the next twelve months.

Neither am I.

***I am reassured by your expertise in the field.

Stagnation seems more likely, and would follow the mold of prior recessions.
***This is not the mold of prior recessions. I am saying this is a possibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:See thats your mistake Fateweaver. If you only knew how we win our moderator positions you would completely understand.

Why do I have this picture in my mind of Frazz and the wiener dogs(all leathered up and armed with some sort of dog tusk's of course) vs Yakface and his minions.

2 men (+dogs and minions) entah 1 man and minions layve.

GG

I will have to take up that idea at the next Moderator 3 day bender. I like your thinking!

Mannahnin wrote:I pointed out the ridiculous error in your reasoning by using an extreme example. If you don't want people to point out the terrible flaws in your reasoning, you need to make major changes to your posting habits.

Re: military pay-

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/allhands/bltaxes.htm

You have, as usual, no idea what you're talking about.

Going by what friends told me. I have no reason to check validity of their claims.

I do know military income is not used to determine assistance programs like WIC and MA. One of my friends and his wife are on WIC which would not be possible if SS used his income as basis. He made too much on his own to qualify, they only used his wifes.

He might have paid taxes for 22 months of overseas combat pay but he was given a tax break so he either didn't pay as much or got a larger refund/EITC.

Me being misinformed and not checking into it is not as ridiculous as the claim you made asking me if I molest children. I made a far less harmless attack on a mod and got a 3 day vacation. I'm hoping yak will do the same for you.

As you've made your complaint, I think it would be best not to keep harping on about it.

Fateweaver wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I pointed out the ridiculous error in your reasoning by using an extreme example. If you don't want people to point out the terrible flaws in your reasoning, you need to make major changes to your posting habits.

Re: military pay-

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/allhands/bltaxes.htm

You have, as usual, no idea what you're talking about.

Going by what friends told me. I have no reason to check validity of their claims.

Except in a debate, citing a fact you heard from some guy in a pub without a little fact-checking first can make anyone sound rather idiotic.

Frazzled wrote:
I will have to take up that idea at the next Moderator 3 day bender. I like your thinking!

Don't forget the videos...and no "Lightning bolt!! Lightning bolt!!" stuff either.


GG

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I pointed out the ridiculous error in your reasoning by using an extreme example. If you don't want people to point out the terrible flaws in your reasoning, you need to make major changes to your posting habits.

Re: military pay-

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/allhands/bltaxes.htm

You have, as usual, no idea what you're talking about.

Going by what friends told me. I have no reason to check validity of their claims.

Except in a debate, citing a fact you heard from some guy in a pub without a little fact-checking first can make anyone sound rather idiotic.

From a guy in a pub, sure I'd look into it.

From friends of 16+ years I have no reason to question them.

Big difference between friend and stranger.

Your friend may have actually told you something factual, but then you failed to comprehend what he actually meant. That's a possibility as well.

You made the absurd and stupid claim that unless something impacts a person financially, there’s no reason for them not to do it. I used an extreme (and admittedly tasteless) example to show you the error in your reasoning.

Frazzled wrote:
No thats not what the major companies are saying behind closed doors boyo.

Wait, my fault, I was talking about the GDP growth rate (projected at that, now that I look at my notes), not net GDP growth. You are right that the GDP shrank through 2009, by roughly 2%.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, no thats not reality. Sorry.

That's not reality when you work in the petroleum industry. But even a quick examination of a company like GE shows us that sales increases were not the only driving force behind revenue in the last decade. I was being hyperbolic, I thought you'd be familiar with that concept.

Frazzled wrote:
This is not the mold of prior recessions. I am saying this is a possibility.

Its sort of a weird combination of 3-4 prior test cases.

Well, your attack has been brought up. It's no longer in my hands.

You tell me to think before I post. Take your own advice eh, especially as a mod.

Actually he has a point Ragnar and you have to admit it. If there is no negative harm to you, then you have much less of an interest in opposing it. People who don't pay taxes have less concern about raising tax rates for those who pay. I don't smoke crack (meth well thats a different story made BY Americans, FOR Americans) so I have less of a concern about increasing prison penalties for said drug offenders.

No skin equals lessened interest.

Now its not applicable to presidents as they do pay income tax (I think). BUT it is aplpicable to Federal Judges and SCOTUS who DON'T (at least not back in the stone ages of my law school). Its amazing when you are the final arbiter of the Constitution that you can find an out clause on why income taxes don't apply to you...

Frazzled wrote:Actually he has a point Ragnar and you have to admit it. If there is no negative harm to you, then you have much less of an interest in opposing it.

Only if you think that people act out of self-interest and self-interest alone...

I'm not homeless, but I don't want people to freeze to death just because they're out on the street. I'm not unemployed, but I want to see a genuine effort made to decrease the unemployment rate. I hate cats, but I don't want to see them boiled alive in a great big pot.

...Well, okay - I lied about one of those. Guess which one!

The President does pay income tax.

Less reason =/= no reason.

And as noted, in the case of the specific person he was talking about, he was simply wrong.

Don’t defend idiocy. He continually posts dumb and ignorant things. And while flaming him is not the way to fix it, ridiculing a ridiculous assertion as a time-honored Dakka tradition.

Kilkrazy wrote:The President does pay income tax.

It was just as true the first time you said it....

I repeated it because people keep saying Obama doesn't mind about raising income tax because he doesn't have to pay it.

From what I understand the president doesn't pay taxes.

That's it! I'm going to WATER DOWN your rum!

ooh Dem's fighten words boyyy... Super soaker squirt guns at ten paces.

Good thing I drink Bourbon and Scotch...Suck it rum drinking heathens!!!!

Yeah. Nothing like a good ol' glass of Yukon and Coke.

Yukon Jack? With lime juice you can have a snakebite.

I'm usually a single malt or beer guy, but Fraz has advised that when we get together to drink, it's going to be rum. So be it!