Republicans may be able to crow a short while after 2014, but come 2016, not so much!  

he Democratic message for the last 80 years has been effective. The system isn't fair. We're going to tax the selfish,cheating rich and pass the bennies to you. You can't make it without our help. Rely less on yourself and more on the state. You'll lose some freedom but think of the security we are providing you. Just keep us in power.
   Have you noticed whenever Obama speaks it's always in the collective? Words like "we" "us" " together". Not a word about what an individual can achieve. Remember him saying " you didn't build that"?. Of course they welcome illegal immigrants. They will be dependent on government checks. The Democrats are the party of government. They designed the welfare state.      I may not see it but the country will devolve from. Constitutional republic with a limited federal government to a European like collectivist monstrosity that grows like a cancer. It is an obvious correlation: as the state grows the liberty of the individual shrinks. It has to.

that their shit don't stink? You ever think that business is more confident that Democrats are in tune with "it"? ... it being the BJ the "masses" want to swallow.

this present way of doing things cannot last.

"The system isn't fair."

Hanauer says: "Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn’t seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats say fairness—and lose every time.

"The 'system isn't fair" is true for many, but it has limited utility, but why has it been so successful in the past.? Because that is the felt experience of many people. And, that is what political campaigns are based on.

 
"We're going to tax the selfish, cheating rich and pass the bennies to you."

Yes, that's been said explicitly by some democrats, and alluded to by others, but once again why has it been so successful? Because that is the felt experience of many.

"You can't make it without our help. Rely less on yourself and more on the state. You'll lose some freedom but think of the security we are providing you. Just keep us in power."

I can't think of anyone who has explicitly said that, though some may have implied it. But, it is true in the extent that most people, when someone more affluent than themselves takes advantage of them, or does them financial, emotional or physical harmful to them, cannot compete with them in the legal system. Having the best lawyers often buys one free reign to do much as they please. Have you heard of the defense of "Affluenza." That's an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but less extreme examples are pretty much the fabric of our legal system.

What many people on the right will not admit is, yes there are lazy people who want to be taken care of, but there are also, plenty of people who want to succeed, but feel there is no level playing field for them to do so. Many of you on the right only point out the former, and ignore mentioning the latter, and all the while not admitting that the playing field is skewed for many in the lower and middle class. Doing so is dishonest. Don't let disdain of the poor or lazy blind you for the need to change the system. As Hanauer points out, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have really addressed the solutions, on the national level, and many of these changes will need to be initiated by local and state governments.

Right now, the wealthy do not believe in investing in America. They are keeping their $2T on the sidelines.

And do you blame them? Liberal pols knock them at every turn, constantly looking to hurt them, take their money b/c DC cant handle theirs properly.

Lib are always come up with new and improved ways to KILL incentive to invest here. Pushing for $15 minimum wage, forcing the job killing & regulation mess that is Obamacare down their throats, proposing new taxes on them, new regulations, higher tax rates, etc. Thats not to mention the corrupt IRS, OSHA, EEOC, a worldwide recession and local and global competition.

They are investors Matt. They didn't get rich making more bad choices than good. Until they see the U.S. become a more business friendly country, they will keep their money offshore, invest in foreign business adventures and just sit on their money passing the hours away with a martini on their yacht.

Dont know about you but I never got a job from a poor person. Every job I ever had was b/c some rich guy took a risk, bet ON America, and by his ingenuity allowed other people to prosper off of his initial investment.

Until the day that Washington gets it head out of its ass, addresses the massive problems with our debt, anti-business attitude, deal with the coming collapse of Soc. Security and Medicare, we are doomed.

Libs may feel great about beating up the rich but thats all it does is make them feel good. If you make it hard on them, they will make it hard on the rest of us.

There is no escaping that fact

I don't know who it will help in the long term.  Things change and shift. If I could be sure of the future, I would be at the track in time for the third race.

That said, regardless of who it ultimately helps, does anyone think this is a good thing for the nation - aside from your side making political hay out of it in the long run?

Is it good that tens of thousands of undocumented kids come across the border and immediately qualify for welfare and Medical and education and everything else without having contributed at all.

Is it a good thing that local welfare systems and schools may be strained.

If it is bad, how can it be stopped?  (I think a fence and serious and fast enforcement, but if you have other ideas, I would like to hear thed.

So it was “the poor” that drove the DOW to 17000 last week?

        Damn, Jack you must have been right – “the poor” must have more telephones than I thought, or at least internet.

      Now here is your homework assignment. First, turn off Fox news. Second, look up the return of the S & P 500 since Mr. Obama took office. Third, compare that to the return of any foreign country index or emerging market index. Fourth , look up the S & P 500 return during the Bush administration.

       Then tell us again that “the rich” -including that famed "foreign investor Warren Buffet - don’t invest here "right now."  Even misguided  market timers like St. Croix have made tons of money investing US during the Obama admin. Ask St. Croix how much he has invested elsewhere. Prediction - he will say only enough to keep a diversified portfolio

But let me help you out.

Since I mentioned competition, Obamacare, the recession, regulations, OSHA, etc etc etc in my OP, I obviously was NOT referring to stocks.  

It was clear I was referring to the investing re: starting new businesses or the expansion of established ones.

Its stunning you dont know the difference between the two and how one effects middle class jobs greatly and the other one marginally.  

Anyone who has any knowledge of business whatsoever knows and would instantly recognize the reference of the $2T figure sitting on the sidelines by corporations, as it has been WIDELY reported.  

Stick to the law Mari. You look REALLY foolish when you venture out of that realm.

I see - the rich ARE investing in US stocks but are not using their money

to “start new businesses or the expansion of established ones.”  

       H’mm- strange distinction but, as they say, I guess the rich are not like you and me LOL.

 
        Jack you are a little confused here.  The method by which the rich “invest” in new businesses or the expansion of new ones is overwhelmingly by buying stock or some other security in the business. Rarely does Mr. Buffett or Mr. Gates any more put the shovel in the ground himself.  

       The guys who start new businesses are usually the non-rich who hope to become rich after they receive investments from the already rich.
 
          Have you ever been to Silicon Valley? The overwhelming majority of those businesses were funded in part by venture capital, private equity, or hedge funds.  This is long before they go public. Many say we are still in the golden age of venture capital. You should at least watch Shark Tank to get some idea of this Jack.

         And when established business expand, they usually do it in three ways: sell more stock, sell bonds, or take out loans. While there are occasional foreign acquisitions such as GE’s recent purchase of a French company, most of the expansions have been and remain right here at home.

         Just bc corporations have a lot of cash on their balance sheet
does not remotely support your contention that they do not believe in investing in America. They may be choosing to raise their R & D budget or increase Dividends. They are not investing overseas either, are they? And a lot of that money is being held overseas not bc of any aversion to investing in America but bc of the taxes they must pay to bring that money home.

         If your argument was correct, you would show us that US companies were inordinately investing overseas rather than here.  Of course, even that would give you a false number. US companies are "investing" in China more than any other country right now, not bc they are down on the US but bc China is a new and the biggest market. Every town in the US already has a McDonalds.

      The US is still the best place in the world to “invest” in new businesses whether we are talking about investing directly in stocks or starting a new business.

Sorry Buddy but you are way, way off here

Hint...the DOW as an index will be gone in 20 years. Use the S&P as a better benchmark for the health of business.  

Are you giving Obama credit for the market? Hope not. The only credit Obama should get for the S&P rise is renominating Bernanke, then nominating Yellen.  

S&P at 1985 divided by $120 in 2014 earnings = a P/E of 16.5. A bit overvalued, but not much. Nothing fancy, nothing Obama. In fact a lot of is share buy-back, cost reductions, some acquisitions, but not as much organic growth as you would like.  

Some of the smart money has moved to emerging markets and Europe the past 3 or 4 months. Take a look at EEM as an example. Gotta be ahead of the game, appears you're not.  

Still have BAC? I hope you watch the 10 year as you can map financials directly to the 10 year treasury.  

Yeah, I've done well investing in this market. But shit mari, even clueless investors can make money in this market. It's like playing pin the tail on the S&P 500. Just thank the Fed, not Obama.

The article specifically mentioned Hobby Lobby and immigration as two key cultural issues. Lets take Hobby Lobby. Propose a solution that both parties could potentially agree on. Think about it logically. 95% of woman prefer the birth control pill as the contraceptive of choice. There is middle ground in every issue.

into Apple at about $511 before the split.

         You would be proud of me – not a financial in the portfolio. Can you believe how BAC fucked up their DD? I will never, ever buy them again.  

           It’s been a great year for me. The melt up in utilities cured the one big loser (well, not counting Dryships LOL) I had -Excelon, and good old Teco keeps charging forward. KMP has been volatile but I don’t care as long as they keep paying that DD. For a guy who once had a nearly six figure loss in BAC alone, investing life is good. One day Dryships will come back – you’ll see. LOL.

        For now, just call me Dr. Copper. I’m in Freeport Mac in a big way. You are going to see a break out in a few months

Buffet and Gates? McDonalds? LOL. You are out to lunch.

Mari, news flash: 70% of the job creation is typically done by SMALL business NOT from the Fortune 500 types.

They don't use hedge funds, they don't sell stocks and they don't sell bonds to expand or start their businesses. lol

They start them out of a garage or some small, corner office somewhere paying $800/mo in rent.

Some of those people then have some success, they build up their cash reserves and they decide to expand. Or not. Right now, it's mostly not.  

Not JUST for small businesses but for all sized businesses. They are scared to death to expand and take on more risk in this anti-business environment.

And you better go read that link I sent you. It is your hero Obama claiming that corporations are sitting on their money as well.

Now stop getting your information from Shark Tank and start getting it from CNBC. lo

It's embarrassing, and not even close to what really happens in Silicon Valley with "real" venture capital.  

I'm only going to disagree with you on your little paragraph that it's usually the non-rich who hope to become rich. If you are using Silicon Valley as an example, and it is a good example of investments in nascent companies, you have basically 2 types of individuals that start these companies. First group are not necessarily rich monetarily, but for the most part are rich through an establish network. They tend to be graduates of Stanford and Berkeley. Second group are monetarily rich as they are refugees from established Silicon Valley companies starting over with their existing riches. You could have a third group mainly overseas, specifically Asia, and they are individually well funded, but still need the seed money to get started.  

Shark Tank mari! Really!!!!

Let me guess- you went to Trader Joe’s and bought a case of Two Buck Chuck.

I've never seen such utter confusion in a thread.

        First, you told us that “the wealthy do not believe in investing in America. They are keeping their $2T on the sidelines.”

          The wealthy, however, don’t have 2 T on the sidelines. You were confusing them with public corporations.

          When I pointed out that stock market performance rebutted any notion that the rich were not investing in America, you explained that you meant “starting new businesses or expanding existing ones.”

 
      When I pointed out that rich individuals rarely start new businesses but rather invest in start ups that do, you shifted to a new theme – you actually meant small businesses, not big corporations.

          But now you have painted yourself in a corner. According to the SBA website, small businesses are “growing rapidly” – there is no shift to small businesses moving overseas in lieu of starting in the US. And small businesses don’t have $2t on the sidelines, do they?

      Be sure to raise a glass to me when you get to the last bottle, Jack LOL

are not representative of the non-rich who want to become rich?

       I watched the first episode and was didn’t like it bc the guys were portrayed as such nerds that they were just uninteresting –plus the constant references to jerking off made me nauseous- do kids really talk about that all the time today?

       But I stuck with it and – still don't like the show, except for a few bits like the portray of the stereo salesman who quits his job to market a parking lot app.  They could have done a lot more with the premise…sign. The girl was hot though, I’ll give em that.

         My one foray into a venture capital fund was a complete disaster- but we’ll save that story for another time

It had NOTHING to do with stocks, bonds, etc investing.

You only read the first sentence and you skimmed the rest of my post.  

You responded with the non-sequiter of the year that the Dow hit 17,000 which had NOTHING to do with my OP.  

You were confused from your very first post on this thread and you have been digging ever since.

Take the aspirin now to ward off that hangover tomorrow. lol

-- Modified on 7/5/2014 11:27:31 PM

No you did not build the roads, electricity distribution systems, water distribution, or any other stuff needed for basic life.  

Taking from the middle class and giving to the rich is what bat shit crazies are good at. No, tax cuts does not grow the economy or jobs there is no evidence.

No illegal immigrants cannot apply for any welfare.

Without immigrants, our economy would have stagnated like Europe’s.  

But, you and your bat shit crazy compatriots getting information from Fox and Rush like personalities are way too stupid to think for yourselves nor can you get into an intellectual debate other than regurgitation baseless soundbites from the former.

-- Modified on 7/6/2014 2:51:37 AM

there is no incentive for them to invest production because, unfettered speculation and the banks ability to manipulate financial and commodity markets coupled with income tax rate of less than 11% on long term gains gives then return vastly higher than investing in anything other than social networks.  

Economy grows when the people spend money to goods and services. Look at the economic growth of the United States for the last 75 years and look at the consumer spending and economic growth. They are almost perfectly correlated. Also look at the minimum wage increases and tax cuts while you are at it.

My guess is you are not going to look at anything instead, you will post some brain dead regurgitation from whacky internet site or what you heard Fox and the like.

Republicans are loosing and will continue to do so because the younger generation is not going to support bat shit crazies. Spend some time with them, they ridicule people like Cruz, Ryan and Paul. The younger generation gets it, you guys are not.

But thanks for telling us what you secretly meant instead of what you actually said.

        So when you said “the wealthy do not believe in investing in America” you did not actually mean the “wealthy” or “investing” at least as far as investing in stocks goes.  (“They are investors Matt”). You were really talking about multinational corporations who have $2T in cash on their balance sheets.  

        But sorry once you start talking about individuals sipping martinis on their yachts, you can’t say your post has nothing to with stocks. Whether we are talking about Carl Icahn buying shares of Apple on the public market, Warren Buffett thru BH buying an American railroad company, or Steve Jobs creating Pixar and Next, they are all buying stock (oh maybe sometimes a limited partnership unit or other limited liability entity). No rich guy would put his fortune on the line any other way.

         Now as to multinational corporations, Jack, you are not entirely wrong. Mr. Obama’s economic policies have limited their decision to expand or hire new employees. In particular, Mr. Obama’s overregulation of the banking industry is directly tied to why investment bankers are not hiring right now.

        But in blaming the lack of job creation on the Obama economy, you are forgetting “how did the corporations acquire that $2T in cash over the last six years?” Now look at how much cash they had at the end of the Bush admin. Compare bankruptcy filings during the Bush admin with the Obama admin. Too much regulation? Before there was “good job Brownie” there was “good job Kenny Boy.”  Before Mr. Obama pushed the Volker rule and tightened underwriting standards, there was Countrywide writing mortgages with their eyes closed.  

        Pretty scary. All right- I have tortured you enough on this thread. But next time try to be a little clearer for those of us who are “so out of our element.” LOL

Confidence: It is the food of the wise man and the liquor of the fool.

You are kinda well known for these, ya know. lol

At least you manned up and realized you could have read it wrong. Props for that.

And I'll try and post differently in the future. Just for you Mari. :

Its had a nice little run lately, and at a 52 week high, but it's not just the fact that it's an economically sensitive stock. You have to watch the Grasberg Mine in Indonesia. You have to watch China's economy as they are the biggest users of copper. Most industrial metals have been whacked over the past couple of years. Now the fact that FCX did diversify with a couple of energy (oil) acquisitions will help downstream as they move farther away from metals and mining.  

I played a little in the FCX space for a short time, but that was a couple of years ago. But a fart in the global economy, and this will be the first stock to drop, and I mean drop. Just look at 2nd half of 2008. Please have a tight stop.  

A 6 figure loss in BAC alone. Are you nuts! If that's your idea of an appropriate "buy and hold" approach, then you won't mind if I stick with my Vegas style of investing (lol). Trust me, I'm more conservative than you when it comes to investing.

P.S. My current spec stock is Twitter. I bought in the low 30s. Now to be honest, my other spec stock is Groupon. We all make mistakes.

"There is middle ground in every issue."

And yes, Republicans and Democrats can work together if the choose to. Just go to The "Global Public Square," and see the examples of Houston, TX, and Sioux Falls, SD, where they've worked together to successfully address the issues of unemployment, economic vitality, and in Houston's case, stood the anti-immigration argument on it's ear

FOX News and their audiences were in?  

Before you go off on me, I'm not calling you a bigot. I'm just saying that the answers and solutions should come from reality, and not from fears about others different than ourselves. This latter trend is not just limited to our country, but some major countries in Europe as reflected in the latest EU Parliamentary elections. I see illegal immigration as a problem, firstly because it's a legal issue. However, even with legal issues, financial concerns are part of the solution. Give me some data on cost-benefit analysis regarding your solutions, and I'm all ears. Of course if the rich, and the small, medium and big companies would quit hiring them, that would be a solution, though I'm certain how that would impact the economy. I know the rich soccer moms around here would have to take care of their own kids. That could play havoc on the economy due to their lack of available time for shopping and dinning at the high-end retailers and restaurants. And, the rich weekend do-it-yourselfers, would really, really have to do it themselves rather than recruit those guys standing around the Home Depot parking lot. It's the age old conundrum of how much of your resources do you use going after the drug user vs. the drug supplier, the John or the provider, or pip? Regarding the parent-less kids coming across the boarder, sounds like a major problem. However, some effective means to stopping those who transporting them here may very well put their lives in jeopardy. Do you view them as just collateral damage? We are face with much the same humanitarian issue as those Syrians and Iraq's fleeing into Jordan and Lebanon.

END OF MESSAGE