rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Another non-answer. A Typical Rocco Response. Not certain how that is a non response. the poster asked it was polls where this information was available and I said yes. they also asked who these economists were, and that was answered as well. you people get more entertaining by the minute. it is like a comedy routine watching you get your asses kicked and coming back for more. amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Thanks for passing along fantasy. polls are now fantasies. interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I couldn't find your "economists", rocco, in this article. Perhaps you could suggest another? http://finance.yahoo.com/#market_summary_us asked an answered my friend - asked and answered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 why i bother with you yahoos is beyond me. You cant deal in realities - you make shitt up to the point you actually believe your own bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 why i bother with you yahoos is beyond me. You cant deal in realities - you make shitt up to the point you actually believe your own bs. Mr. High and mighty yet again. I used to have a little respect for you but lately you've done nothing but put down people at every turn. It's quite pathetic really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 why i bother with you yahoos is beyond me. You cant deal in realities - you make shitt up to the point you actually believe your own bs. Rocco you are the one who cant face reality. You spew your crap and have nothing to back it up. When somebody who has a different opinion than you do posts something factual you either change the subject, lie or make up some BS to get off track, attempt a spin, make some stupid comment about where they got their facts that they posted, resort to name calling or insults, or completely ignore the post and pretend you didnt see it because you are trapped with no reply to the truth and you know it. You are a childish fool. People have asked you several times on here where your source is about the economists that you speak of and you cant even post where you got your information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Mr. High and mighty yet again. I used to have a little respect for you but lately you've done nothing but put down people at every turn. It's quite pathetic really. well after 605 posts of people not dealing with any reality - real numbers and making things up - the yahoos can get the best of anyone. This thread has been one of the most ridiculous on here to date. what i find quite pathetic is you and the other yahoos who wish to revise hostory, not take into account reality and continue with childish name calling. I figured that is all you understand so I did the same. give it up - you lost his argument before it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rocco you are the one who cant face reality. You spew your crap and have nothing to back it up. When somebody who has a different opinion than you do posts something factual you either change the subject, lie or make up some BS to get off track, attempt a spin, make some stupid comment about where they got their facts that they posted, resort to name calling or insults, or completely ignore the post and pretend you didnt see it because you are trapped with no reply to the truth and you know it. You are a childish fool. People have asked you several times on here where your source is about the economists that you speak of and you cant even post where you got your information. ummm i guess you missed where i pointed out the polling info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Who was the president from 2003-2008 and what did the Dow do during those years? Also who was the president when the Dow reached its highest? http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/DW/M Rocco? You cant answer these questions can you? @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 It's that bad. It's been going on since October of 2007. Or did no one tell you.So he has known about it for well over a year and he has no idea of what to do yet? You have to remember if you can say since Oct 2007 you are stating that he has known about this from a more informed stand point than anyone in the general population and he had a hand in causing it.DID ANYONE TELL HIM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 and in 1937 - why did unemployment go up from 11 to 17? after it had gone down from 25%? Roosevelt had listened to republicans who wanted him to cut spending and cut taxes for the rich - hence, his recovery stonewalled and retreated. so - now I know you like revisionist history and you also like to make things up and pretend they are real - but this is a no bullshitt zone and ya simply cant get away with it here. The year of 1937 was the year that the New Deal chickens came home to roost. Rapid unionization courtesy of the Wagner Act was raising the cost of labor in an economy swimming in surplus labor. In the first six months of 1937 wages had risen 11 percent. In the steel industry wages went up 33 percent. And higher wages without higher output hurt company profits. Then there was the new tax on wages mandated by the Social Security Act of 1935 that employers and workers started paying in 1937. The Undistributed Profits Tax of 1936 was biting business, and companies were laying off employees. And this would appear to be a tax cut to your eyes. There also was the new tax on SS mandated in 1936 that kicked in but hey whats a few taxes amongst friends when your rewriting history. The Undistributed Profits Tax was enacted in 1936 by the United States administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), during the Great Depression . The UP Tax was a revenue program for FDR's New Deal. The act was controversial even within FDR's Treasury Department, as some noted economists such as Alfred G. Buehler thought that it would harm the ability of business to put capital towards company growth. In particular, Buehler reasoned that the UP Tax would hit small business especially hard, as smaller businesses have fewer options in raising capital than large ones, usually by keeping a percentage of their profits for re-investment back into the business. The UP Tax was part of FDR's "Second New Deal". Business profits were taxed on a sliding scale; if a company kept 1 percent of their net income, 10 percent of that amount would be taxed under the UP Tax. If a company kept 70 percent of their net income, the company would be taxed at a rate of 73.91 percent on that amount[1]. Conservative critics of the New Deal considered this a burden on business growth. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rocco? You cant answer these questions can you? @ Your obsession with the Dow and it's relation to economic health and the state of our economy shows a woeful lack of knowledge of both, the market and our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The year of 1937 was the year that the New Deal chickens came home to roost. Rapid unionization courtesy of the Wagner Act was raising the cost of labor in an economy swimming in surplus labor. In the first six months of 1937 wages had risen 11 percent. In the steel industry wages went up 33 percent. And higher wages without higher output hurt company profits. Then there was the new tax on wages mandated by the Social Security Act of 1935 that employers and workers started paying in 1937. The Undistributed Profits Tax of 1936 was biting business, and companies were laying off employees. And this would appear to be a tax cut to your eyes. There also was the new tax on SS mandated in 1936 that kicked in but hey whats a few taxes amongst friends when your rewriting history. The Undistributed Profits Tax was enacted in 1936 by the United States administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), during the Great Depression . The UP Tax was a revenue program for FDR's New Deal. The act was controversial even within FDR's Treasury Department, as some noted economists such as Alfred G. Buehler thought that it would harm the ability of business to put capital towards company growth. In particular, Buehler reasoned that the UP Tax would hit small business especially hard, as smaller businesses have fewer options in raising capital than large ones, usually by keeping a percentage of their profits for re-investment back into the business. The UP Tax was part of FDR's "Second New Deal". Business profits were taxed on a sliding scale; if a company kept 1 percent of their net income, 10 percent of that amount would be taxed under the UP Tax. If a company kept 70 percent of their net income, the company would be taxed at a rate of 73.91 percent on that amount[1]. Conservative critics of the New Deal considered this a burden on business growth. @ look up hisorical fact rather than cutting and pasting blogs you are sad and pathetic @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Who are these economists you ask? You know, people who went to school and got maters degrees at fine universities in the united states, specializing in their feilds. You dont know what an economist is? and yes - the public has been polled and they will give the new president a year and a half to fix things or pay the price. do you watch news? are you aware of public opinion polls? do you evr watch "news" - you know - outside opinion, entertainers? Rocco when are you going to learn when you quote something like a poll to link it. I'm sick of trying to find everything that you spout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 look up hisorical fact rather than cutting and pasting blogs you are sad and pathetic @ Sorry pal this is from the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. You may want to have your shrink / Economist friend come over and Analise it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rocco when are you going to learn when you quote something like a poll to link it. I'm sick of trying to find everything that you spout. Rocco has become a troll posting inflammatory nonsense for affect. It seems like he is satisfying a bizarre need for negative attention, much like AFC used to do in the past. The deteriorating quality of his debating and reluctance to post credible sources is obvious. Lets leave poor Rocco alone for a while. He seems to have had some kind of a breakdown. His debates and sources used to be credible. No longer, though. I think he has been misleading us. I don't believe he is as educated and knowledgeable as he presents. His spelling, grammar, punctuation and attention to detail do not represent much of an indication of higher learning. You have become a troll. Rocco. A troll. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4unoit Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Speaking of fact how do you like these numbers? Just Keeping it real. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_index_history Obama Approval Index History Date Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove 03/09/2009 +6 38% 32% 56% 43% 03/06/2009 +15 42% 27% 58% 40% 02/01/2009 +21 44% 23% 63% 34% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Monday, 3/9 New 12 year low. DOW down almost 80. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank & Rocco are exuberant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Your obsession with the Dow and it's relation to economic health and the state of our economy shows a woeful lack of knowledge of both, the market and our economy.Rocco how exactly do you gauge the economy? A.By polls?B.by what Obama's press release tell you to. C.By how much money you have in change in your pocket at the time asked.??? Most do it by manufacturing,the stock market and employment figures. I think that's how most world governments do it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 well after 605 posts of people not dealing with any reality - real numbers and making things up - the yahoos can get the best of anyone. This thread has been one of the most ridiculous on here to date. what i find quite pathetic is you and the other yahoos who wish to revise hostory, not take into account reality and continue with childish name calling. I figured that is all you understand so I did the same. give it up - you lost his argument before it started. Blah blah blah "revisionist history". Until you start posting some sources to back up your argument you're just spinning your wheels and insulting people. Continue ignoring what myself and others have posted while putting us down. You look real intelligent and mature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Your obsession with the Dow and it's relation to economic health and the state of our economy shows a woeful lack of knowledge of both, the market and our economy. Because no one has ever used the stock market as a gauge for how well the stock market is. @ Edit: Should say "how well the economy is" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphoristically Moderate Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Because no one has ever used the stock market as a gauge for how well the stock market is. Interesting article from 1998... http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980404/09450504.html Does anyone remember how Paula Jones was Bill Clinton's most persistent "Bimbo eruption?" Not Monica. Not Juanita. Not Kathleen. Not any of the others. Clinton apologists used to say, "Americans care more about DOW Jones, not Paula Jones." Bill Clinton was kept on a short leash by a Republican Congress. People felt confident about the future, and the DOW... "soared within four points of a record breaking 9000." OMG! Obama mentioned the DOW today. He said something like, "If the DOW was going up, no one would be more happy than me." I believe him. If the stock market was doing well, he would be the first one brag about it. As it is now, he doesn't "Keep track of its gyrations." Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scott's fan club Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 redundant quote the DELETED strikes again. when the DOW was near 9000 with clinton, the overall economy was very good. unemployment, inflation and the defecit were in good shape. it would take someone with a small amount intelligence to realize the DOW and the economy aren't directley connected to eachother. that leaves scott out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Poster Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 the DELETED strikes again. when the DOW was near 9000 with clinton, the overall economy was very good. unemployment, inflation and the defecit were in good shape. it would take someone with a small amount intelligence to realize the DOW and the economy aren't directley connected to eachother. that leaves scott out. The $100 question: What sparked the depression beginning in 1929?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Your obsession with the Dow and it's relation to economic health and the state of our economy shows a woeful lack of knowledge of both, the market and our economy. Is this not the topic we are on? "Obama Stimulus, You Liberals got what you wanted - DOW tanking" I will take that as you still refuse to answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.