Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
So people were crying because the TARP $$ was "never going to be paid back," and now people are crying because it's being paid back too early and without sufficient interest??!
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> If like Obama wants to do he raises their taxes, what do you think > the rich will do?
Bombs, bullets and bailouts aren't cheap. If you're only going to parrot talking points and not offer solutions, zip it.
>Raising taxes on corporations and upper income people will reduce the total >revenue the government actually receives and will reduce jobs. This has >ALWAYS proven to be true historically.
Actually, it hasn't. Reagan's initial tax increase did the opposite and helped stabilize a crap economy.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
On Jan 13 12:31 PM Right in San Francisco wrote:
> I would note that over 90% of incumbents in congress were reelected > despite an approval rating for the institution of less than 15%.
As I pointed out yesterday (don't you read your own threads?), the number isn't "over 90%" -- it's 86%, and the number of eligible incumbents really wasn't that large, comparatively.
The 2nd Repub bloodbath in 2 elections can easily be read as a vote for Congressional sea change. (Not that it will happen; just that it's the clear will of the people.)
I look forward to your post tomorrow, in hopes that it will be identical to the one from today and yesterday. At this point, you're one step away from notsosmart, who consistently uses the 6th-grade term "sheeples" as though this were Fark or 4Chan rather than Seeking Alpha.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Does the whining never end?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> The article mentioned the increased cost of a car as $1300 by 2016.
> Will the savings in gas offset that $1300?
Surely your computer has a calculator built in.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> the rich will do?
Bombs, bullets and bailouts aren't cheap. If you're only going to parrot talking points and not offer solutions, zip it.
>Raising taxes on corporations and upper income people will reduce the total >revenue the government actually receives and will reduce jobs. This has >ALWAYS proven to be true historically.
Actually, it hasn't. Reagan's initial tax increase did the opposite and helped stabilize a crap economy.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
> I would note that over 90% of incumbents in congress were reelected
> despite an approval rating for the institution of less than 15%.
As I pointed out yesterday (don't you read your own threads?), the number isn't "over 90%" -- it's 86%, and the number of eligible incumbents really wasn't that large, comparatively.
The 2nd Repub bloodbath in 2 elections can easily be read as a vote for Congressional sea change. (Not that it will happen; just that it's the clear will of the people.)
I look forward to your post tomorrow, in hopes that it will be identical to the one from today and yesterday. At this point, you're one step away from notsosmart, who consistently uses the 6th-grade term "sheeples" as though this were Fark or 4Chan rather than Seeking Alpha.