Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[Larry]

A lot of people work for the government - PennDOT, Unemployment, Vocational Rehabilitation, VA Hospital, Military, etc. If we eliminated all of these jobs to shrink the size of government, what would happen to them? It seems that those few who actually pay taxes would have more money, but everyone else would be up a creek. Maybe Joe would use his extra money to hire them to clean his house.

No, keep all the government workers, hell give em all a raise. Let everyone work for the government. Who cares if our future obligations are over $60 Trillion?

We now borrow 40 cents of every dollar the government spends. How long do you think this big ponzi scheme can go on?

What do you tell the 77 million baby boomers who will turn 65 in the next 19 years? Ten thousand are turning 65 every day!!! They are all expecting pensions, Medicare and Social Security, but there is no way in this universe to pay for that.

Do you think government got too big,and made too many promises?

To answer your question, they would have to get non government jobs.

What jobs are available? Unemployment is already pretty high. Plus, if we cut spending, many businesses would be crushed - Drug companies, Defense companies, etc. I know we shouldn't spend ourselves into bankruptcy, but what's the solution? Quickly pull off the band-aid and deal with the ensuing madness? I suggest we start with a balanced budget, something we haven't seen since Clinton.

[Banned]

Balancing the budget would be GREAT!!!! That would require a cut of $1.6 Trillion right now to balance this year's budget. Think they wouldn't scream over that in DC?

To cut the current spending by 1.6 Trillion Dollars (16 thousand billion) would require a lot of government workers losing their jobs. but if we don't start getting this government under control now, the coming disaster in 20 years will be unimaginable.

[f.sciarrillo]

Balancing the budget would be GREAT!!!! That would require a cut of $1.6 Trillion right now to balance this year's budget. Think they wouldn't scream over that in DC?

To cut the current spending by 1.6 Trillion Dollars (16 thousand billion) would require a lot of government workers losing their jobs. but if we don't start getting this government under control now, the coming disaster in 20 years will be unimaginable.

Cutting spending is something that has to be done, that is for sure. The only question is what? There are agencies that can be privatized, and there are agencies that can be merged. That would save a lot of fundage. Something else they can do is defund Obamacare. That would take a huge load off.

[Larry]

Balancing the budget would be GREAT!!!! That would require a cut of $1.6 Trillion right now to balance this year's budget. Think they wouldn't scream over that in DC?

To cut the current spending by 1.6 Trillion Dollars (16 thousand billion) would require a lot of government workers losing their jobs. but if we don't start getting this government under control now, the coming disaster in 20 years will be unimaginable.

We all know that Obama will not risk increasing the unemployment rate going into an election year. No candidate would. Hopefully, he'll tackle this right after he's re-elected. For now, it's time to stop pouring money in bombs, tanks, and fighter jets.

[lonewolf]

Balancing the budget would be GREAT!!!! That would require a cut of $1.6 Trillion right now to balance this year's budget. Think they wouldn't scream over that in DC?

To cut the current spending by 1.6 Trillion Dollars (16 thousand billion) would require a lot of government workers losing their jobs. but if we don't start getting this government under control now, the coming disaster in 20 years will be unimaginable.

It ain't gonna take no 20 years. All its gonna take is a significant rise in Treasury interest rates. There are 2 main things that can cause that:

Inflation
Too many Treasury issues and not enough buyers of Treasury paper.

We saw the beginnings of the latter last summer and then the Fed introduced QE2 to take up $600 billion of the slack. That $600 billion will be all used up sometime during the next few weeks. We will then see whether this unprecedented level of borrowing can continue or will bond buyers demand higher interest rates for their money.

That $600 billion in Treasuries will be held in the Fed's portfolio and will not be released into the general money supply...let's hope it stays that way.

[songsmith]

Start reading those articles and it is very clear. Taxes are lower because the economy, or the Obamination Depression, has reduced incomes. When incomes are down, taxes are down. When everyone is making less money, there is less to tax, that is why taxes are down.

?

No, REVENUES are down because the economy's down, but TAX RATES aren't tied to economic performance, they are set, in terms of percentages or flat fees, by gov't. When incomes go down, revenue goes down... rates stay the same. Taxes rates are down because the "BIG BAD GOVERNMENT" gave those awesome job-creating rich people a bunch of tax breaks. How's it working, are there lots of jobs now, like they promised? Is government smaller?

[Banned]

Start reading those articles and it is very clear. Taxes are lower because the economy, or the Obamination Depression, has reduced incomes. When incomes are down, taxes are down. When everyone is making less money, there is less to tax, that is why taxes are down.

?

No, REVENUES are down because the economy's down, but TAX RATES aren't tied to economic performance, they are set, in terms of percentages or flat fees, by gov't. When incomes go down, revenue goes down... rates stay the same. Taxes rates are down because the "BIG BAD GOVERNMENT" gave those awesome job-creating rich people a bunch of tax breaks. How's it working, are there lots of jobs now, like they promised? Is government smaller?

Aren't those bad, bad rich people giving you enough free handouts? The government doesn't "give" a tax break, it just steals a little less than usual.

Where the 500,000 jobs a month the big O and Joe Biden promised after the porkulus package? They are your buds, why don't you ask them for us? Tax rates are the same for quite a while now, there are no recent tax breaks.

[Hawk]

I was once a manager at a store that will remain nameless. The store was subdivided into different departments. There were 48 different stores in the chain. My particular department had the highest total profit in our region (15 stores) and was consistently second or third in the entire chain. We did this by NOT selling everything at the highest profit that we could. The idea was to make less on each item, but to sell way more volume than we normally would at a higher profit margin. It worked stunningly. So in answer to your question, yes I have regularly sold property for less than I could get for it relative to what the market supports. I might also add that in addition to being one of the best in the company, we routinely were more more profitable than other chains selling similar items. This particular business has since adopted a different strategy, btw., and has not done as well since. Any company that operates purely in the way you outlined is not very intelligent and is cutting itself out of the market. Either you know some really bad businessmen, or you're not really understanding the scope of the situation. I hate to say it Bill, but I think you are a bit naive on this one.

That's a nice little story, but what you don't know is: What did it cost the company to make the item ? What did the store pay for the item ?



If you go on line and check musical instrument sites like Misicians Friend you will see that most of the sites have items at nearly the exact same price. That's because the manufacturers sets the price that the items can be advertised at. You might read that sentence again. The manufacturers help prevent competition ! The music shops are allowed to sell the items for less, BUT they're not allowed to tell you that in their advertised price.

Retail markup. Our conversation has been based on what companies / manufacturers make on their items, but your story is based on what the store makes. That is two completely different subjects. I was alluding to the fact that manufacturers will raise prices if everyone has more spending money, not what a store sells the items for.

Although the two are intertwined. I know a drum shop in Harrisburg and I know what they pay for many of their items. Mark up is over 100%. For instance they pay about $35 for a $100 item. $100 is the retail price you see on the tag. NO ONE will pay the retail price, but it is there for a reason. The retail price is set by the manufacturer and it is the basis the manufacturer sets it selling price (wholesale) to the store.

So you see this drum shop sells items for great deals. Let's say they knock 20% off just for you on the $100 item. They just made $45.

I am not in any way saying they are making too much money. They need that kind of mark up to stay in business.

Not all items are marked up that much. Other items in other retail markets are marked up more than 200%. If you see a furniture store selling items for "half off" you can be sure that they are still making a very good profit on that item !

If you see a store selling "buy one - get one free", they are still making a very good profit.

So you see, the competition you are talking about in your store has nothing to do with the manufacturer. And the fact that your store sold it for less than another store after a mark up increased your sales of items but how much did it increase profits ? If I sell ten items and make $100 per item I make $1,000. If you sell 15 items and make $1,000 you increased sales but I did better because I dealt with less stock.

I also know a store's location has a lot to do with sales. If you take 50 stores from one chain, the location / cities has more to do with overall sales than anything else.

Now let's consider stores like WalMart. They are so big that they can dictate to the manufacturer what prices are. You remember the Etch-a-Sketch toy by Ohio Art. They were made in the USA. WalMart told them they had to have them made in China because Walmart would only pay X for the item and they only way Ohio Art could get their item into Walmart was to go to the place Walmart sent them to. So Walmart doesn't play by the same rules set by free market compitition.

You might see two gas stations across the street from each other compete with each other by lowering their price. But the Big Oil companies that sold them that gas have nothing to do with that compitition.

[Banned]

I was once a manager at a store that will remain nameless. The store was subdivided into different departments. There were 48 different stores in the chain. My particular department had the highest total profit in our region (15 stores) and was consistently second or third in the entire chain. We did this by NOT selling everything at the highest profit that we could. The idea was to make less on each item, but to sell way more volume than we normally would at a higher profit margin. It worked stunningly. So in answer to your question, yes I have regularly sold property for less than I could get for it relative to what the market supports. I might also add that in addition to being one of the best in the company, we routinely were more more profitable than other chains selling similar items. This particular business has since adopted a different strategy, btw., and has not done as well since. Any company that operates purely in the way you outlined is not very intelligent and is cutting itself out of the market. Either you know some really bad businessmen, or you're not really understanding the scope of the situation. I hate to say it Bill, but I think you are a bit naive on this one.

That's a nice little story, but what you don't know is: What did it cost the company to make the item ? What did the store pay for the item ?

What does that matter Bill?. His store was better than the other 15 stores. It was a chain, so costs were all the same for all the stores in the chain. You missed the point that NOT selling at the highest price you could get gave his store the highest profits.

[lonewolf]

Even the worst theories have some kind of corroborating data to justify them.

Hmmmm, tax cuts cause inflation? Lets see. We have an excellent model to study in the Bush Tax cuts incorporated in June, 2001. If tax cuts cause inflation, surely there would be some effect in the inflation rates after these cuts.

Yearly Inflation rates:

2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%

2001 Monthly
Jan 3.73%
Feb 3.53%
Mar 2.92%
Apr 3.27%
May 3.62%
Jun 3.25%
Jul 2.72%
Aug 2.72%
Sep 2.65%
Oct 2.13%
Nov 1.90%
Dec 1.55%

What's this? It cannot be! The inflation rates after the tax cuts are LOWER than the baseline 2000 rate and are all under the generally acceptable level of 3%? The monthly data shows a significant decrease in the monthly inflation rate after the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted.

Conclusions? Some people will stick with their incorrect beliefs even though the rest of the world disagrees and the data doesn't support it.

Moral of the story: Although it might be a good place to learn how to run a trade business, a Holiday Inn seminar is probably not the best place to learn generally accepted economic theory.

There is a simple explanation: Common sense doesn't work if the assumptions and the information is incorrect.

source: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... rentPage=0

[Hawk]

I was once a manager at a store that will remain nameless. The store was subdivided into different departments. There were 48 different stores in the chain. My particular department had the highest total profit in our region (15 stores) and was consistently second or third in the entire chain. We did this by NOT selling everything at the highest profit that we could. The idea was to make less on each item, but to sell way more volume than we normally would at a higher profit margin. It worked stunningly. So in answer to your question, yes I have regularly sold property for less than I could get for it relative to what the market supports. I might also add that in addition to being one of the best in the company, we routinely were more more profitable than other chains selling similar items. This particular business has since adopted a different strategy, btw., and has not done as well since. Any company that operates purely in the way you outlined is not very intelligent and is cutting itself out of the market. Either you know some really bad businessmen, or you're not really understanding the scope of the situation. I hate to say it Bill, but I think you are a bit naive on this one.

That's a nice little story, but what you don't know is: What did it cost the company to make the item ? What did the store pay for the item ?

What does that matter Bill?. His store was better than the other 15 stores. It was a chain, so costs were all the same for all the stores in the chain. You missed the point that NOT selling at the highest price you could get gave his store the highest profits.

And you are not considering all of the variables. Like the location of the store relative to the other stores ? How many stores in his region that were not in his chain sold the exact same product ? It's normal for one or two stores in a chain consistently do better because of location.

[Hawk]

Even the worst theories have some kind of corroborating data to justify them.

Hmmmm, tax cuts cause inflation? Lets see. We have an excellent model to study in the Bush Tax cuts incorporated in June, 2001. If tax cuts cause inflation, surely there would be some effect in the inflation rates after these cuts.

Yearly Inflation rates:

2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%

2001 Monthly
Jan 3.73%
Feb 3.53%
Mar 2.92%
Apr 3.27%
May 3.62%
Jun 3.25%
Jul 2.72%
Aug 2.72%
Sep 2.65%
Oct 2.13%
Nov 1.90%
Dec 1.55%

What's this? It cannot be! The inflation rates after the tax cuts are LOWER than the baseline 2000 rate and are all under the generally acceptable level of 3%? The monthly data shows a significant decrease in the monthly inflation rate after the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted.

Conclusions? Some people will stick with their incorrect beliefs even though the rest of the world disagrees and the data doesn't support it.

Moral of the story: Although it might be a good place to learn how to run a trade business, a Holiday Inn seminar is probably not the best place to learn generally accepted economic theory.

There is a simple explanation: Common sense doesn't work if the assumptions and the information is incorrect.

source: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... rentPage=0

You're kidding right ? Like that's the only variable relative to inflation. Come on, you can do better than that...

[Banned]

Even the worst theories have some kind of corroborating data to justify them.

Hmmmm, tax cuts cause inflation? Lets see. We have an excellent model to study in the Bush Tax cuts incorporated in June, 2001. If tax cuts cause inflation, surely there would be some effect in the inflation rates after these cuts.

Yearly Inflation rates:

2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%

2001 Monthly
Jan 3.73%
Feb 3.53%
Mar 2.92%
Apr 3.27%
May 3.62%
Jun 3.25%
Jul 2.72%
Aug 2.72%
Sep 2.65%
Oct 2.13%
Nov 1.90%
Dec 1.55%

What's this? It cannot be! The inflation rates after the tax cuts are LOWER than the baseline 2000 rate and are all under the generally acceptable level of 3%? The monthly data shows a significant decrease in the monthly inflation rate after the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted.

Conclusions? Some people will stick with their incorrect beliefs even though the rest of the world disagrees and the data doesn't support it.

Moral of the story: Although it might be a good place to learn how to run a trade business, a Holiday Inn seminar is probably not the best place to learn generally accepted economic theory.

There is a simple explanation: Common sense doesn't work if the assumptions and the information is incorrect.

source: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... rentPage=0

You're kidding right ? Like that's the only variable relative to inflation. Come on, you can do better than that...

Bill, Bill You are the one who says that if we paid less in taxes that inflation would raise all the prices of things so we would not be better off. He just proved very convincingly, that you are wrong.

[Banned]

That's a nice little story, but what you don't know is: What did it cost the company to make the item ? What did the store pay for the item ?

What does that matter Bill?. His store was better than the other 15 stores. It was a chain, so costs were all the same for all the stores in the chain. You missed the point that NOT selling at the highest price you could get gave his store the highest profits.

And you are not considering all of the variables. Like the location of the store relative to the other stores ? How many stores in his region that were not in his chain sold the exact same product ? It's normal for one or two stores in a chain consistently do better because of location.

Again, you missed the point. You said if we had more money, businesses would just charge more. That they would always charge the most they could get for the products. Jason just showed you that does not always happen, and when it did not happen, his store actually did very well.

Why not try my extension of your illogical idea? According to you, if we had more of our money (instead of the government) all prices would go up, a bad thing. So, why don't we give all our money to the government, that would be better for us right?

According to Bill---more money is a bad thing.

so, less money must be a good thing.

[lonewolf]

Even the worst theories have some kind of corroborating data to justify them.

Hmmmm, tax cuts cause inflation? Lets see. We have an excellent model to study in the Bush Tax cuts incorporated in June, 2001. If tax cuts cause inflation, surely there would be some effect in the inflation rates after these cuts.

Yearly Inflation rates:

2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%

2001 Monthly
Jan 3.73%
Feb 3.53%
Mar 2.92%
Apr 3.27%
May 3.62%
Jun 3.25%
Jul 2.72%
Aug 2.72%
Sep 2.65%
Oct 2.13%
Nov 1.90%
Dec 1.55%

What's this? It cannot be! The inflation rates after the tax cuts are LOWER than the baseline 2000 rate and are all under the generally acceptable level of 3%? The monthly data shows a significant decrease in the monthly inflation rate after the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted.

Conclusions? Some people will stick with their incorrect beliefs even though the rest of the world disagrees and the data doesn't support it.

Moral of the story: Although it might be a good place to learn how to run a trade business, a Holiday Inn seminar is probably not the best place to learn generally accepted economic theory.

There is a simple explanation: Common sense doesn't work if the assumptions and the information is incorrect.

source: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... rentPage=0

You're kidding right ? Like that's the only variable relative to inflation. Come on, you can do better than that...

Just say "uncle" and get it over with.

Your theory has thoroughly and mercilessly been debunked.

If anything, all this data shows is that if there is any statistical correlation between tax cuts and inflation whatsoever, it is inverse; however, my somewhat lengthy experience in data analysis tells me that there is no correlation whatsoever.

EDIT: THE REAL KICKER: If tax cuts cause inflation, don't you think that every democrat politician from Bangor to Burbank would have used this argument as another reason to roll back the Bush tax cuts? Politicians may be clueless about reality, but they know a good sound bite when they hear one. Consequently, I never heard of this before reading it on Rockpage.

It must be true, I read it on Rockpage!

The ONLY variables relative to inflation are the overall money supply and GDP.

[onegunguitar]

According to Bill---more money is a bad thing.

so, less money must be a good thing.

Isn't that what Obama really wants? If not,sure seems like he's putting this country in that direction.

[lonewolf]

According to Bill---more money is a bad thing.

so, less money must be a good thing.

Isn't that what Obama really wants? If not,sure seems like he's putting this country in that direction.

Obama: Less money for us. More money for the Central Committee.

[songsmith]

Libertarianism:
Less money, no benefits, longer hours, more dangerous work, more pollution, no say in gov't, no retirement for us...
More profit, no regulation, all political influence, all social influence, less taxation, no middle-class, bigger yacht for them.

Kinda like a third-world country.

[Banned]

Libertarianism:
Less money, no benefits, longer hours, more dangerous work, more pollution, no say in gov't, no retirement for us...
More profit, no regulation, all political influence, all social influence, less taxation, no middle-class, bigger yacht for them.

Kinda like a third-world country.

Libertarians: A country without a $61 Trillion Debt. A government that does not make promises that it will not and can not keep.

[songsmith]

...and an anarchy resulting from not having adequate infrastructure, police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations. It's pure fantasy, from people who live in a dreamworld where they are Mad Max and Superman rolled into one, and not a soft-bellied middle-aged white guy like me. Sheep who talk like wolves, while real wolves lick their chops.

[Banned]

Someday he might actually find out about libertarians before he makes uneducated and idiotic posts about them.

Libertarians are against an authoritarian, controlling central government. They understand and prefer local governments, where we all have much more of a voice.

Show me a libertarian website that does not want "police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations"

Ron Paul, a noted libertarian has been trying to exercise some oversight of the Federal Reserve Bank. He cannot even get the politicians in DC to authorize an audit of the Fed. How can you have oversight when they will not allow an audit just to find out what is really going on there?

[songsmith]

Libertarians are against an authoritarian, controlling central government.

...But they totally support whites-only businesses and corporate control of all facets of American life, except when religion can control us.

Show me a libertarian website that does not want "police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations"

I will do exactly that, tomorrow. It's my day off, and I go outdoors. Extremism fades in direct sunlight. Try it sometime.

[autumnsky]

Aren't we already living in a third-world country under a socialist regime?
We even have a muslim president!

[Gallowglass]

...But they totally support whites-only businesses and corporate control of all facets of American life, except when religion can control us.

Johnny...I understand that half the shit you post is directly aimed at getting Joe's goat, but honestly...do you really believe that? I'd really like to know. It seems like you really equate the libertarian movement with the fundamentalist right. I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for almost 20 years now (that's right, motherfuckers, I got REAL LP creds.) and have a vested interest in knowing how it is perceived. If that's really the case, the party is doing a piss poor job of communicating it's ideals.

[Larry]

Someday he might actually find out about libertarians before he makes uneducated and idiotic posts about them.

Libertarians are against an authoritarian, controlling central government. They understand and prefer local governments, where we all have much more of a voice.

Show me a libertarian website that does not want "police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations"

Ron Paul, a noted libertarian has been trying to exercise some oversight of the Federal Reserve Bank. He cannot even get the politicians in DC to authorize an audit of the Fed. How can you have oversight when they will not allow an audit just to find out what is really going on there?

When the state and local governments had too much power, it led us into a civil war. In restoring that local power, how do you ensure a sense of loyalty to the nation as a whole? I don't want to go on vacation, walk into a bar, and have Skeeter say, "Hey boy, we don't take kindly to your type around here."