Sunday 3:45 PM Economic Town Hall Meeting

Bman wrote:

LTRT wrote:What I like about this tread is that Bman is getting hammered by posters 5 to 1, kind of like what's going to happen in November.

Oh Obama will not even campaign in Indiana in the fall, these backwood rednecks here will never support this king of change. Hell this freakin state fought the time change and class basketball ... lol. This state loves the status quo, that is why it is a floundering state right now, just ask Caddy Compson.

Yeah, Caddy's got more answers than Barak... we should ASK CADDY!

Ahem... we have medical bankruptcy's already, in fact, someone on here just told us about hers.. sorry, I can't remember who it was.

The 36% interest rate cap is a complete and total joke. The fact that he actually thinks this is a good thing is a very bad sign of how knowledge of finances.

He's addressing the result, not the problem of bankruptcy's from a medical standpoint. We need proactive care, both financially and medically, not reactive.

And bman.. no one will eliminate a $10T debt anytime soon short of cutting all costs and raising taxes dramatically. It simply won't happen. However, Hillbama both want to punish the rich, which is the source of their taxes right now. Raising the capital gains rates on the rich really won't make much difference because anyone who is smart will take those gains this year before they get into office and hold out with the major gains until the law gets overturned, which it will eventually if it gets passed.

The Dem's want to spread this doomsday mood about the economy right now, and their solution is to raise taxes on the people who pay in the most as it is. They also want to raise energy costs with these ridiculous windfall taxes on big oil. That's smart.. let's give them more excuses to raise taxes, because there's no way they are going to cut profits.

Bman wrote:I believe Obama will do things differently than Bush and I honestly believe that the rancorous tone in Washington will change.

For those of you who vote republican no matter what (my grandfather, featherhead and LTRT) that is weak and cowardly. Put some thought in to it.

Why do you believe that Obama has the ability to change the tone in Washington? What qualifies him to do this? Does he have a supernatural ability to neutralize rancor?

cardinal5150 wrote:Ahem... we have medical bankruptcy's already, in fact, someone on here just told us about hers.. sorry, I can't remember who it was.

The 36% interest rate cap is a complete and total joke. The fact that he actually thinks this is a good thing is a very bad sign of how knowledge of finances.

He's addressing the result, not the problem of bankruptcy's from a medical standpoint. We need proactive care, both financially and medically, not reactive.

And bman.. no one will eliminate a $10T debt anytime soon short of cutting all costs and raising taxes dramatically. It simply won't happen. However, Hillbama both want to punish the rich, which is the source of their taxes right now. Raising the capital gains rates on the rich really won't make much difference because anyone who is smart will take those gains this year before they get into office and hold out with the major gains until the law gets overturned, which it will eventually if it gets passed.

The Dem's want to spread this doomsday mood about the economy right now, and their solution is to raise taxes on the people who pay in the most as it is. They also want to raise energy costs with these ridiculous windfall taxes on big oil. That's smart.. let's give them more excuses to raise taxes, because there's no way they are going to cut profits.

I've been agreeing with more and more of what Card has to say since I joined The Real Board... funny .. . the way I remember it on the other one, he was kinda mouthy... (as to the kettle, the pot remarks)

I agree with your take on Obama's platform Card... because he's young, and yet, he's older than both you and I and he can't understand the "give and take" to any decision.... or else he thinks his base of people are complete morons... and maybe they are (Bman exempted because we don't persecute the cool-aid).

One interesting thing I noticed about what you said is

cardinal5150 wrote:to punish the rich, which is the source of their taxes right now. Raising the capital gains rates on the rich really won't make much difference because anyone who is smart will take those gains this year before they get into office and hold out with the major gains until the law gets overturned, which it will eventually if it gets passed.

Hey all you rich, can you hear the bell tolling? Come November, you'll have about 50 days to get that deal closed ...

BUT, it may also "freeze" some of the assets for a while to make the economy temporarily more "viscous". Does anyone follow what I'm thinking?

Meta.. I follow what your saying.. we've been having this exact discussion with many of our clients right now. People who have gains or "income" sitting in their balance sheet of their companies, we've been telling them they need to surface those this year, or at least be prepared to surface them before their tax rates shoot up if Hillbama gets elected.

I find it hard to believe that we're the only firm who is doing this. Maybe in Ft Wayne as I've found most firms around here are rather dim-witted when it comes to accounting foresight, however, I'm pretty sure there are smart accountants across the nation. I don't consider myself smart, most of this is common sense.

It will be very interesting though to see how the market responds to a change like this.

cardinal5150 wrote:Meta.. I follow what your saying.. we've been having this exact discussion with many of our clients right now. People who have gains or "income" sitting in their balance sheet of their companies, we've been telling them they need to surface those this year, or at least be prepared to surface them before their tax rates shoot up if Hillbama gets elected.

I find it hard to believe that we're the only firm who is doing this. Maybe in Ft Wayne as I've found most firms around here are rather dim-witted when it comes to accounting foresight, however, I'm pretty sure there are smart accountants across the nation. I don't consider myself smart, most of this is common sense.

It will be very interesting though to see how the market responds to a change like this.

First Card, in a previous post (up there) nice attempt at spin, calling the Obama and Clinton tax policy an "attack" on the rich. I call it just making the tax system a tad bit fairer.

I would agree, if you are sitting on capital gains you better dump those assets this year or sit on them a long time. We have some medicine to take, better take it now.

When would you guys say the deficit is too high? Do we EVER hear Bush talk about the deficit? I say once again, you guys are silly to believe that spending cuts are going to even slightly pay down the deficit. Clinton raised taxes in during his 8 years and we had budgetary surpluses ... Bush and Reagan cut taxes and we had HUGE deficits. Seem the Democrats are the ones to trust in economic policy.

If any of you folks are rich I would advise you to vote for McCain/Bush but if you think the rich have gotten richer and you have not kept up with inflation or if you could not replace your job if you lost it then I would encourage to think about change.

I get the sense that you guys are all only concerned with how it impacts your wallet/purses and until you get pinched you will not think more broadly. Kind of like Meta saying a cancer patient should have to decide between living and bancruptcy, I think that is sad that America would allow a person to be thrown in bancruptcy over a life or death medical decision.

Bman wrote:... wow I think I have found a pocket of people here who are better off today than they were 8 years ago and they want 8 more years of the same.

Maybe this pocket of people think it is personal responsibility. Not to take stupid home mortgages and then bail out the idiots that did. Maybe it is to find a job and work your way up, instead of sitting at home complaining how low the pay is to start and wait for the next government check and program.

But hey we got Billary and Obama, here to create more government programs, more regulations, more taxes. Ummmm I'll take the personal reponsibility crowd over the hand out crowd.

Bman wrote:I get the sense that you guys are all only concerned with how it impacts your wallet/purses and until you get pinched you will not think more broadly. Kind of like Meta saying a cancer patient should have to decide between living and bancruptcy, I think that is sad that America would allow a person to be thrown in bancruptcy over a life or death medical decision.

Ok, now you're starting to irritate me...

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Bman wrote:... wow I think I have found a pocket of people here who are better off today than they were 8 years ago and they want 8 more years of the same.

Maybe this pocket of people think it is personal responsibility. Not to take stupid home mortgages and then bail out the idiots that did. Maybe it is to find a job and work your way up, instead of sitting at home complaining how low the pay is to start and wait for the next government check and program.

But hey we got Billary and Obama, here to create more government programs, more regulations, more taxes. Ummmm I'll take the personal reponsibility crowd over the hand out crowd.

Cheers to what Scoob says.

meta4 wrote:
3. Reform Bankruptcy Laws... so people who are lucky enough to get treated without insurance, or have inadequate insurance and have $250k or more (for example) in medical bills will just be able to walk away... and that won't have a negative impact on healthcare for everyone else? This sounds to me like "as long as you take a bankrupcy, we'll pick up the tab"? IMHO, bankruptcy and poor credit would hurt the injured even more than the injury... and for much longer.

Meta where did I misquote you? Not trying to "irritate" you but just want some clarity here.

IrishGuy and Scooby, where did anyone not say personal responsibility is not a good thing. Explain to me how personal responsiblity is going to pay down the debt. Tell me how personal responsibility to going to get drug costs under control, tell me how personal responsibility is going to reduce medical costs ... should we be personally responsible and forego medical treatment if we can't afford it? Should a child whose parents who work but have no benefits not receive dialysis treatments because their parent can't pay and were not responsible enough to get a good paying job with benefits and pensions in this economy.

I agree, people need to step up to the plate more but our society needs to create a level fair playing field and right now the field is not fair. Companies are rewarded with tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, companies are ruthlessly ripping apart pension plans, companies are too concerned with maximizing shareholder value at the expense of the working employee while the CEO earns millions of options which he in turn gets richer on because shareholder value has been maximized and AND he only has to pay 15% tax on the proceeds from his stock sales.

Give me a break ... this field is not fair and personal responsiblity will not make it fair.

My rants have wore me out the last two days!

Another 11 days and I will go back into my hole until November!

Bman wrote:My rants have wore me out the last two days!

Now that's something we can agree with you on.

meta4 wrote:
3. Reform Bankruptcy Laws... so people who are lucky enough to get treated without insurance, or have inadequate insurance and have $250k or more (for example) in medical bills will just be able to walk away... and that won't have a negative impact on healthcare for everyone else? This sounds to me like "as long as you take a bankrupcy, we'll pick up the tab"? IMHO, bankruptcy and poor credit would hurt the injured even more than the injury... and for much longer."

Bman wrote:I get the sense that you guys are all only concerned with how it impacts your wallet/purses and until you get pinched you will not think more broadly. Kind of like Meta saying a cancer patient should have to decide between living and bancruptcy, I think that is sad that America would allow a person to be thrown in bancruptcy over a life or death medical decision.

Bman wrote:Meta where did I misquote you? Not trying to "irritate" you but just want some clarity here.

Show me where I said ... like meta saying (begin quote)"a cancer patient should have to decide between living and bancruptcy"(this is the symbol for close quote)

My father passed away from cancer, and he had insurance, etc. Ultimately he listened to the doctor's advice, sought the council of specialists and decided not to spend 150 or 200 thousand dollars per year of his own money on experimental treatments (that's just getting started) that MAY have helped but there are no guarantees. I still miss him but that's what life is, there is a beginning and an end. I think it's crazy when rich people spend millions of dollars to try to live forever, it's just nuts.

So your paraphrase wasn't my point at all. My point was that sometimes people just die from cancer, no matter what the treatment, and it's a choice that the person with cancer and/or his/her family makes, whether to SPEND A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY TRYING or to just accept mortality.

I don't think people without insurance (that could be the guy who makes $200k/year OR 'the poor') should have a blank check to write so they can fight a terminal illness.

A current example of why we need 8 more years of the same economic policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311590/?GT1=43001

Meta my sympathy over the loss of your father, but who gets to decide when too much money is being spent. I was on dialysis for 4 years racking up huge bills and renal failure is considered terminal. I hazard a guess that my 4 years on dialysis and my transplant cost in the neighborhood of $800,000 (dialysis averaged $3K a week and my transplant was about $200,000) and if I had medicare alone my out of pocket would have been $160,000 should I have had to make that decision? My disease was terminal, neither dialysis or a transplant is a cure, my medicines cost $2,500 a month now of which medicare picks up 80% and my private pays on the balance but if I was medicare alone once again there is a HUGE outstanding balance for someone not working. Should they have to make that choice?

Like I said, I would not wish on anyone what you and your family and your father went through, our medical system is a wreck and needs fixed but a person should never have to choose between life and death, not me not anyone. I have been there ... thankfully I had good insurance but there are those that dialysis forces into bancruptcy and then they live on medicaid etc ... I would go a step further than any of the candidates I would go with a national single payer plan like Canada ... ok ... stop the liberal cat calls, I hear them. lol

But this issue of medical conditions bancrupting a person is PERSONAL for me too just not you.

Bman wrote:Meta my sympathy over the loss of your father, but who gets to decide when too much money is being spent. I was on dialysis for 4 years racking up huge bills and renal failure is considered terminal. I hazard a guess that my 4 years on dialysis and my transplant cost in the neighborhood of $800,000 (dialysis averaged $3K a week and my transplant was about $200,000) and if I had medicare alone my out of pocket would have been $160,000 should I have had to make that decision? My disease was terminal, neither dialysis or a transplant is a cure, my medicines cost $2,500 a month now of which medicare picks up 80% and my private pays on the balance but if I was medicare alone once again there is a HUGE outstanding balance for someone not working. Should they have to make that choice?

Like I said, I would not wish on anyone what you and your family and your father went through, our medical system is a wreck and needs fixed but a person should never have to choose between life and death, not me not anyone. I have been there ... thankfully I had good insurance but there are those that dialysis forces into bancruptcy and then they live on medicaid etc ... I would go a step further than any of the candidates I would go with a national single payer plan like Canada ... ok ... stop the liberal cat calls, I hear them. lol

But this issue of medical conditions bancrupting a person is PERSONAL for me too just not you.

I appreciate your sympathy Bman, and I know it's genuine. I didn't share that info for emotional weight to my argument and you've shared a personal account which sounds like hell enough to go through without bankrupcy. But one key difference is that you had private health insurance. I guess maybe I'm not understanding what the difference is between your argument and medicare.

Bman wrote:A current example of why we need 8 more years of the same economic policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311590/?GT1=43001

Well since the media pretty much only focus on the bad what do you expect. Can you hear someone from the 1930's hear us complain about 95% employment rate. Can you hear someone from the 1970's hear us complain about 6% home mortgage rates vs the 18% then. The media has had us in a recession last quarter yet the GDP was 3.4% that quarter. 97% of the home owners pay their mortgages on time, but you only hear about the 3% that was stupid.

Last week unemployment applications dropped 33,0000 did we hear about that? Even in that report you hear just as much doom and gloom as you do about the lower of people applying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Bman wrote:A current example of why we need 8 more years of the same economic policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311590/?GT1=43001

Well since the media pretty much only focus on the bad what do you expect. Can you hear someone from the 1930's hear us complain about 95% employment rate. Can you hear someone from the 1970's hear us complain about 6% home mortgage rates vs the 18% then. The media has had us in a recession last quarter yet the GDP was 3.4% that quarter. 97% of the home owners pay their mortgages on time, but you only hear about the 3% that was stupid.

Last week unemployment applications dropped 33,0000 did we hear about that? Even in that report you hear just as much doom and gloom as you do about the lower of people applying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims

82% of Americans feel like we are in a recession. Wages that have not kept up, jobs shipped overseas, benefits cut, pensions eliminated yet CEO's and Executives get huge stock option payouts because they maximized shareholder value. Limbaugh and you can not convince the American public that we are not in the throws of a recession. Alan Greespan has said so, Bernake has hinted and danced around it so you and Limbaugh trying to convince the American public is fascinatingly funny.

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:Meta my sympathy over the loss of your father, but who gets to decide when too much money is being spent. I was on dialysis for 4 years racking up huge bills and renal failure is considered terminal. I hazard a guess that my 4 years on dialysis and my transplant cost in the neighborhood of $800,000 (dialysis averaged $3K a week and my transplant was about $200,000) and if I had medicare alone my out of pocket would have been $160,000 should I have had to make that decision? My disease was terminal, neither dialysis or a transplant is a cure, my medicines cost $2,500 a month now of which medicare picks up 80% and my private pays on the balance but if I was medicare alone once again there is a HUGE outstanding balance for someone not working. Should they have to make that choice?

Like I said, I would not wish on anyone what you and your family and your father went through, our medical system is a wreck and needs fixed but a person should never have to choose between life and death, not me not anyone. I have been there ... thankfully I had good insurance but there are those that dialysis forces into bancruptcy and then they live on medicaid etc ... I would go a step further than any of the candidates I would go with a national single payer plan like Canada ... ok ... stop the liberal cat calls, I hear them. lol

But this issue of medical conditions bancrupting a person is PERSONAL for me too just not you.

I appreciate your sympathy Bman, and I know it's genuine. I didn't share that info for emotional weight to my argument and you've shared a personal account which sounds like hell enough to go through without bankrupcy. But one key difference is that you had private health insurance. I guess maybe I'm not understanding what the difference is between your argument and medicare.

Point is that I know people who sat right there with me during dialysis who were forced into bancruptcy because they either 1) did not have secondary insurance (medicare only pays 80%) and many could not afford the drugs we needed to take. I said I had good private insurance, I was a lucky one. The doctors prescribed the best drugs for me and I was fortunate, I am concerned about the one who did not have that benefits and I don't think they should have to make a choice bankruptcy or treatment, I don't. And people, you pay a monthly premium for Medicare ... I pay like $96 a month for that coverage, so many of these people are paying living on fixed incomes, paying $100+ a mnth for coverage the cost of prescriptions plus the 20% out of pocket. I shared the dialysis thing because a lot of people don't think dialysis is a big thing ... you are considered terminal, miss 3 treatments and you more than likely die if not sooner from fluid build up. So these people are confronted with the same decision that cancer and other terminal illness confront. We as an american society need to do better.

Well, my ankle has been bothering me. Can I expect Obama to help me get rid of this pain?

Bman wrote:A current example of why we need 8 more years of the same economic policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311590/?GT1=43001

Once again, though you refuse to listen, our current "economic policy" is not why we are in the state we are in now. It will start picking up soon because of normal cycles, so I'm sure you will give credit to whoever becomes president because of their great "economic policy".

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:A current example of why we need 8 more years of the same economic policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311590/?GT1=43001

Once again, though you refuse to listen, our current "economic policy" is not why we are in the state we are in now. It will start picking up soon because of normal cycles, so I'm sure you will give credit to whoever becomes president because of their great "economic policy".

Just wait Bman, your day of reconing.. ur.... as we know from reliable sources at Fox news... will come ...

Markwes wrote:Well, my ankle has been bothering me. Can I expect Obama to help me get rid of this pain?

Nice! is that a 'dip' into how deep the Obama salve will attempt to heal the woes of society?

[quote="Bman"]

cardinal5150 wrote:

First Card, in a previous post (up there) nice attempt at spin, calling the Obama and Clinton tax policy an "attack" on the rich. I call it just making the tax system a tad bit fairer.

Fairer? Are you joking.. you can't possibly be saying that with a straight face. What is fair? Income redistribution is not fair, it's punishing those who are more successful than others.

I would agree, if you are sitting on capital gains you better dump those assets this year or sit on them a long time. We have some medicine to take, better take it now.

When would you guys say the deficit is too high? Do we EVER hear Bush talk about the deficit? I say once again, you guys are silly to believe that spending cuts are going to even slightly pay down the deficit. Clinton raised taxes in during his 8 years and we had budgetary surpluses ... Bush and Reagan cut taxes and we had HUGE deficits. Seem the Democrats are the ones to trust in economic policy.

If any of you folks are rich I would advise you to vote for McCain/Bush but if you think the rich have gotten richer and you have not kept up with inflation or if you could not replace your job if you lost it then I would encourage to think about change.

I get the sense that you guys are all only concerned with how it impacts your wallet/purses and until you get pinched you will not think more broadly. Kind of like Meta saying a cancer patient should have to decide between living and bancruptcy, I think that is sad that America would allow a person to be thrown in bancruptcy over a life or death medical decision.

Elections are all about your own wallet/purse. That's why every candidate is trying to tell you how they'll put more money in your pocket than the other guy. To think that people are really concerned with how the poor person in the bad part of town is living and that that is going to influence their vote is only fooling yourself.

Why else would Hillary be promoting the idea of a possible second stimulus package before the first one even was rolled out? Why is she running ads telling you how she'll punish those evil oil companies who are taking money from your wallet?

You keep railing against what you call McCain/Bush and we'll keep railing against Hillbama/Castro.

[quote="Bman"]

meta4 wrote:
IrishGuy and Scooby, where did anyone not say personal responsibility is not a good thing. Explain to me how personal responsiblity is going to pay down the debt.

That's an easy one.. personal responsibility means no more stimulus packages, no government bail outs of homeowners (like is being proposed) and no increased welfare. I'd scrap the entire welfare system and replace it with something along the lines of the Indiana WIC program that says you can only buy A, B and C. Period. Give tax credits to business who create new jobs in America, and make them based on pay. Give bigger incentives for higher salaries. That way people aren't dropping the $50K employee for 2 $20K employees.

Cut spending, cut the pork (something McCain has been against from day 1 and is the only candidate who can say this). I'm ok with raising taxes to a point. Move the capital gains taxes back to where they were, and figure out a way to eliminate the AMT, or at least get it back to where it's addressing the original intent, the rich who find loopholes, not the middle class.

Tell me how personal responsibility to going to get drug costs under control, tell me how personal responsibility is going to reduce medical costs ... should we be personally responsible and forego medical treatment if we can't afford it? Should a child whose parents who work but have no benefits not receive dialysis treatments because their parent can't pay and were not responsible enough to get a good paying job with benefits and pensions in this economy.

I agree, people need to step up to the plate more but our society needs to create a level fair playing field and right now the field is not fair. Companies are rewarded with tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, companies are ruthlessly ripping apart pension plans, companies are too concerned with maximizing shareholder value at the expense of the working employee while the CEO earns millions of options which he in turn gets richer on because shareholder value has been maximized and AND he only has to pay 15% tax on the proceeds from his stock sales.

Give me a break ... this field is not fair and personal responsiblity will not make it fair.

My rants have wore me out the last two days!

You seem to be pretty stuck on medical expenses, and my guess is because of your medical history, it's what matters to you and you've seen it all first hand. And to me, there is no real solution to this at this time. Congress is trying to address the result (high premiums) instead of going after the industry itself to get costs down.

I would like to know however some examples of companies who are "ripping pension plans apart". Complaining about your Verizon pension packages that they keep changing on you? From what I recall you are getting back your investment, just not what the company was going to kick in.. so in other words, they are reducing the money that you never got in the first place.. sounds like how when the local government told us property taxes were going down, then changed their minds to try and raise them again. To you that wasn't an increase because we never actually saw the benefit. How is that any different than a company telling you they changed their mind on what they are going to pay you? You never saw it in the first place after all.

But again.. that's ignoring the first rule of investing for retirement.. diversify diversify diversify. If you are counting on your employer to fund your retirement I've got some ocean front property I want to sell you.