Prediction for the Remainder of Congressional Year

Don't worry, Mike, Joe was not joking before. He is only saying that because you spelled it out long and clear so he could put the 2 and 2 together. It's called lying.

I also get a kick out of it when brainwashed bumpkins jump on the "liberal media!" misplaced outrage, and in the same breath defend Fox news, because it is not slanted at all you know..

I sometimes wonder why the cons are so outraged and possessed with feelings of being the victim in everything. Could it be a collective case of hysterical denial? Something so incredible would probably lead to suppressed subconcious guilt and outrage, even self-loathing?

Is there a way to explain the widespread reverence felt for maggots like Rush Limbaugh and the like?

Why are Republicans happy about the recent Supreme Court decision? Is it because it will make their brand of unbridled rape of society even easier for them and possibly even more FUN?

Anybody realize how closely Scott Brown's campaign reflected Scott Kleeb's campaigns? People were upset with the party in power, he ran in a state that was overwhelmingly in favor of the other party, sold himself as an independent, right down to the pickup and the first name. The biggest differences in the two is the party, their positions and the fact that Brown won. I'd say there's a lot more to this election than a good candidate versus a bad candidate. Oh well, that's one down, regardless.

Actually Joe I made that comment about being ashamed of the POTUS as you call it the was with Bush during 9/11 after being told of an attack on the US decided to keep reading, and after Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq despite the fighting still raging at the time, or when he decided to make a video of him looking for WMDs while men and women were dying in the battlefield looking for them, or when he decided to go to San Diego and get a guitar while New Orleans was being obliterated.

Also Joe, don't forget to mention that a majority of all the voters, no matter what candidate they voted for, not only want health care reform but the public option, but that would go against your argument. I never once said that anyone who disagreed with me was far right. But then again you are one of the ones that have turned lying into an art, so if YOU said that I said, I must have said it.

McCook, good points except that Scott brown isn't an independent. Another bold prediction. Scott Brown will lose the next senatorial race once the people realize exactly what they are getting.

Joe in what world do you live if you think this Supreme Court is liberal? But then I guess anything left to your ideology is liberal. This ruling will benefit Republicans much more than Democrats.

If you take a look at who supports candidates with money, Republicans typically only have businesses.

I do have a question. All of you that are middle class but support tax breaks for the rich (ie trickle down economics) where do you think the money for the breaks will come from?

Let's not give him too much credit. There's a difference between refining dishonesty into an art form and being an unoriginal poorly educated liar. Especially one who uses phrases like "a shift to the middle" and "licking their wounds" and "shove their agenda down the throats of a populace"...

All these from just one barely developed thread.

The one that proves so many things in ways that this simplecon will never understand:

"A liberal court ruling that a corporation can spend its money the way it wants to, rather than have the government micro-manage it?"

Haha??

Mike - I do have a question. All of you that are middle class but support tax breaks for the rich (ie trickle down economics) where do you think the money for the breaks will come from? - Mike

When you have tax breaks you stimulate the economy and tax revenue actually increases as your GDP increases.

I.E. tax breaks lowers unemployment - more people work - more pay taxes. Also a lower percent of increased corp profits means more tax revenue than a large percent of nothing.

Remember a lot of sole propritorship, LLC, Limited partnership and S class corps (or is it C Corps) is flow through income which an individual reports on his or her income tax statement when in reality that is business income. Therefore, there are a lot of people that report a lot of income but to raise the individual tax rate would mean that person would have to distribute more money from the business or pay a dividend to pay the taxes.

Mike - I do have a question. All of you that are middle class but support tax breaks for the rich (ie trickle down economics) where do you think the money for the breaks will come from? - Mike

When you have tax breaks you stimulate the economy and tax revenue actually increases as your GDP increases.

I.E. tax breaks lowers unemployment - more people work - more pay taxes. Also a lower percent of increased corp profits means more tax revenue than a large percent of nothing.

Remember a lot of sole propritorship, LLC, Limited partnership and S class corps (or is it C Corps) is flow through income which an individual reports on his or her income tax statement when in reality that is business income. Therefore, there are a lot of people that report a lot of income but to raise the individual tax rate would mean that person would have to distribute more money from the business or pay a dividend to pay the taxes.

Off topic but I think we are doomed if we do not reappoint Bernanke.

He has a plan and to change things up could be a disaster. His plan may have unintended consequences but after what the economy has been through and is going through - nothing is easy at this point.

"Remember a lot of sole propritorship, LLC, Limited partnership and S class corps (or is it C Corps) is flow through income which an individual reports on his or her income tax statement when in reality that is business income. Therefore, there are a lot of people that report a lot of income but to raise the individual tax rate would mean that person would have to distribute more money from the business or pay a dividend to pay the taxes." - Posted by wallismarsh Fri, Jan 22.

"I think we are doomed if we do not reappoint Bernanke." - Posted by wallismarsh Fri, Jan 22.

Wallis, your interpretation of how businessmen manage corporate operations and personal taxes gave me the best laugh of the week.

The reason some of us operate three to seven corporations, [S & C], LLCs and trusts is because it is legally possible to avoid local, state and federal taxes. That way, instead of making major business buys with money already depleted by taxes, we are able to invest 100% of income .

It is legal and sound business. I pay taxes at the same rate as everyone. Only I pay taxes eventually on income resulting from business operations financed with untaxed income.

"I think we are doomed if we do not reappoint Bernanke." - Posted by wallismarsh Fri, Jan 22.

Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have been about 100% wrong the past six years.

Bernanke officially endorsed Sub-Prime Mortgage Based Securities when it was obvious on the international market, that MGS investments were going sour.

Bernanke actually praised the enhanced benefits of MBS issues containing thousands of Sub-Prime Mortgages.

His reasoning -- the Steadily Increasing interest rate meant a can't lose stream of income.

Bernanke rated a mortgage costing the home buyer 2.78% the first two year, increasing toe 5.5% at 30 months, 6.25% during the 36months and topping at 9.25% at 30 months -- as being extremely solid and beneficial to investors.

He failed to understand that Sub Prime meant the buyer could not qualify for a standard mortgage, lacked income to make payments, etc.

With the low beginning interest, "buyers" were able to pay. But by the time interest rose to 9.25%, the "buyer" had already called the moving truck. Mortgage payments were taking 65% of his income, Insurance, utilities, taxes and repairs were jumping that to 72%.

THOSE WERE THE GREAT INVESTMENTS BERNANKE PRAISED.

I look on him with the same respect as those AIG executivess

Has anyone else caught that whiff of hypocrisy blowing off that steaming pile of a post just above. The Crank complains about Republicans and Conservatives not paying their fair share of taxes, all the while he does the same.

Chunky,

If you or I pay less than what the IRS code requireslegally -- That is being a tax cheat and a criminal.

If you are in business, or strictly a wage earner,

and you don't know what the IRS code has to say about you and your income, business, business expenses and how you may LEGALLY protect your income and business profits from all going to taxes -- THEN YOU ARE JUST BEING A PLAIN **** FOOL.

By organizing my businesses to prevent taxes bleeding the profits before that money can be reinvested -- I create more jobs, provide more opportunity for deserving people who work with me and generate more income AND TAXES.

The remaining taxable income is going a long way to support the needless expense of the GOP's ongoing delays and obstructionism in Congress.

I do not take a cruise stopping at the Cayman Islands, slipping ashore to deposit "skimmed millions" in a secret trust, as one draft-dodging, Super Patriot drunk has done for years.

My family did not put all assets into trusts generations back, so individuals avoid all taxes, while enjoying the benefits of great wealth.

You'll notice Chunky, I refrain from name calling and vitriol toward others on here, until some Equine Posterior starts blasting away out of pure ignorance.

When a Super Patriot displays repeatedly through these blog posts a total lack of business knowledge and experience, while regurgitating all the talk host nonsense -- I am concerned with so much ignorance being fully distributed.

draft-dodging, Super Patriot ?? this isn't name calling? Equine Posterior?? this isn't name calling?

One good thing about old age, you forget what you said a few minutes ago. I've also heard you can hide your own easter eggs. ;0

You will get what you give Hank.

Herndon - who do you use to set up your business'? I would like to call them for some help.

My attorney is Glynn Nance - www.Nancesimpson.com

My accountant is Ron Wade in Midland, TX.

They aren't doing me a good job according to you.

Please help me as I pay a lot in taxes.

Thank you.

Wallis Marsh

www.extex.net

wallis, the proof is in the pudding so to speak and unless you can provide some proof then you just tossed up one of the most misleading posts of all time on this site. There is no proof that tax breaks do anything at all.

You stated: "tax breaks lowers unemployment - more people work - more pay taxes. Also a lower percent of increased corp profits means more tax revenue than a large percent of nothing." But where's your proof. The rich lived in tax breaks throughout the 00's and yet unemployment edged up every year under Bush. Reagan did the same thing in the mid to late 80s and the unemployment went up now down as you say.

Trickle-down economics (which is what this is) has been tried twice; in the 80s and the 00s and failed miserably both times.

So I guess I have to answer my own question since you decided to spin an answer out. When tax cuts or breaks are giving to the rich it is taken out of the pockets of the middle class and the poor. Republicans in this country, had they lived in the middle ages, would have been the sheriff and king john in the robin hood tale.

Don't worry Crank, I'm pretty sure the rest of us are proud to carry the load, so that you can avoid your tax obligations.

Oh, and before I forget, Crank. Do you have any proof that Fmr. President Clinton took cruises to the Cayman Islands to drop off money and their banks?

My God this blog is so stupid. Wallis, I wonder why and intelligent person even stops here to chat. Mike just claimed that "tricke down" doesn't work, in fact he claims if failed miserably...twice I guess that depends on how you look at it.

It created a tax revenue mega pile. It created jobs, it lowered unemplyment, etc. That only thing it did that sours progressives like Mike, is that wealthy people made money....God forbid.

Anytime wealthy people make money, progressives and liberals are all in a toot, I guess because the majority of the lower class that are uneducated, lazy, uninspired, unmotivated, unskilled, etc should have gotten wealthy too.

I guess the world isn't fair.

Not only did Reaganomics work, it provided us with 20 years of economic boom. It also showed us what a toolbox Jimmy Carter was. I guess he's one of Mike's hero's so I'm guessing we'll hear how he's some kind genius now.

This class warfair that Mike and the rest of the progressive liberals play is going to doom our country if we don't show them again how it works.

Let's keep educating our children that nothing in this life is "given" to us. We have to fight for everything. Anytime someone provides you with your livelihood you are likely a slave or an endentured servant.

I guess Mike wants us all to be endentured servants, then we'll all be equal...equally miserable. Wouldn't the feds love that? A entire country full of endentured servants that they can force their Ivy League wills on. Screw that, I'll die before I let my country slip that far.

Justin, I like your little play on words, assuming that was on purpose, I can respect the humor of that. But I am curious, why is everything a WAR with conservatives? What's with the terminology? Just wondering..

Although I do agree that we need to take personal responsibility to teach our children that they need to succeed, and to avoid feeling entitled to what there is to work for.

I am in the middle on welfare issues, I think it is important in some cases, but not in many others. I DO think there should be some way to have health care without being ruined or denied (death) by insurance companies..

Mike - Your next time off - I'll fly you to Houston and take you to Mission Control so to speak.

I have data on almost everything.

If you truly want to learn I have the data.

I use 2-D seismic to find oil. Stone knives and bearskins but it works. I have my work from 2000 where I concluded oil prices would be $67-$72 by 2007. I have my work in 2006 where I concluded interest rates would go below 1% with the bottom of the cycle ending sometime around 2012.

I have my current work where I think the stock market should peak around March - go sideways for 6 months then decline until the end of 2012.

I am an engineer that owns his own business. I have data to back up everything.

Now as far as my data goes. In 2002 I predicted that that 4 stocks would gain 200% within 18 months. I was wrong and was taken to task. At the time the stocks were only up 150% or so. By 2005 those stocks were up 400% and by 2008 several were up over 10,000%. A lot of probability type work has a 67%-72% chance of accuracy. There is always that 33% that it could happen faster or a little slower. But once a probablistic model has been set the chance for success and failure is set.

As far as policy is concerned I can show you data that proves and disproves monetary policy - the effect of taxes - the effects of price controls - the effects of fiat currency - all of it. It isn't Wallis Marsh OU grad in Petroleum Engineering opinion - It is Edward Marsh and Wallis Marsh - searching for the truth and evaluating data that are just stating facts.

http://www.seasonalcharts.com/future_energie_crudeoil.html

Oil seasonal get bullish in a month.

http://dshort.com/charts/bear-recoveries.html?56-57-recovery

A roadmap for the stock market.

http://www.mclarenreport.net.au/articles/index.php

Bill Mclaren is a "Gann" guy. Market ideas used in the 1930's - 1955 by the most successful trader of his day. Better the Ben Graham. This method is like hieroglyphics - it will very soon die. I keep track of Gann for possible timing.

http://spaceweather.com/

If you will remember this summer we argued about the cause of "global warming". I discussed sunspots and also brought up the notion that this winter would be very, very cold because of the lack of sunspots and compared that activity to previous winter when sunspot activity was similiar. I don't remember your stance. However, this winter isn't over and February is going to be cold.

The January thaw is explained meteorological.

I do remember the conversation, I also remember thinking that it was odd that you completely disregard global warming but completely accept sun spot weather.

I've also noticed at trend. When it gets really cold all the deniers and their mothers come out and mock those that believe in global warming but it gets really warm or hot you are nowhere to be found. As it has been stated over and over and over again yet continues to be ignored over and over and over again global warming does not necessarily mean that you are going to get warmer temperatures year round. It is part of it, but not even half of it. Global warming causes very extreme weather. For instance in early January here in Arkansas we were hitting record lows and record cold highs and yet a week later we were setting record highs. That is extreme weather.

As I've said before again and again and again and it's been ignored by you and others again and again and again, science doesn't deny global warming, there is no disagreement that the globe is in a warming period, so using quotes around global warming as if it is questioned flies in the face of science. The question is whether or not this period of warming is being sped up and worsened by our activities. If you want to disagree on me with that that's fine. Global warming is real.

Justin and wallis I'll take you both to task, show me the proof. I know Justin won't because he is truly only on here to call me stupid and anyone else who agrees with me stupid. wallis you once again instead of answering a question decided to give a history lesson on yourself. Look at the data. During George Bush's term unemployment went up not down. Justin you claim that we had a huge tax surplus yet the data doesn't back you up, but then again where do you think the taxes came from, it didn't come from the rich.

"Not only did Reaganomics work, it provided us with 20 years of economic boom." -- Do you make this up as you go along or are you stealing it from someone else? Where's the proof that we had a 20 year economic boom because of Reaganomics? When did it start? When did it end? The last time I checked the data the overall unemployment during Reagan's term was similar to Carter's numbers. We had a huge recession at the end of Bush I's term that lasted into Clinton's term. The only economic boom that even occurred over the last 30 years was the Internet bubble in the late 90s. I know you want to defend you revered saint Reagan but don't make stuff up to do it.

You call people idiots for suggesting something different than what you believe and then you make stuff up to defend you point of view?

The only people I see "waging a class war" are the far right who whine and complain every time a tax is proposed for the rich but are oddly silent when the same is proposed on the middle class and poor.

Back to marsh, what do ANY of the links you posted on this blog have anything to do with ... well ... anything? If you want to just post link after link about other things start a new blog on here.

I suggest reading this article. It talks about how high tax states will have a worse economy vs. low tax states having better economies and better job creation.

Mike can you explain if trickle down economics does not work why do the low tax states generally seam to have better economies than the high tax states?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Wallis, boojum, chunky, et al.

Wally,

If your tax attorney and accountant don't know about the legal benefits of S & C Corps, LLCs, Trusts, etc. -- Then it is time to start calling.

We are all obligated to pay our LEGAL TAX LIABILITY. P-E-R-I-O-D-!!

I've been involved in business since the 1930s and know only too well how unnecessarily complex the IRS code has become -- as Congress caters to special interest lobbies. I've seen 90% of the present mess become "writ in bureaucratic stone."

Because of this, when an attorney tells me he cannot do one thing or another, which I know is proper and legal, I start calling other attorneys in the area, until I find one who knows the tax code and corporate law.

I have probably fired more lawyers and accountants than anyone you know.

I don't wander from California to Georgia with these people in my suitcase. You contract professional specialists in "the state."

Yet, while assuming control of "distressed" businesses repeatedly during five decades, I have only been forced to fire five people. All for proven incompetence. New management which "cleans house," destroying institutional memory, established customer and supplier knowledge is insane.

Going to their homes and asking people to return, who had been brutally fired by previous management within a six-month tenure, was the only way to save one sizable business. [One "fired" employee returned and showed me a major

"emergency cash" stash concealed in the huge office safe by a previous manager, which the immediate two previous managers had never known about.

[When I got together with my new partners less than 48 hours later to hear their complaints about rehiring these people -- Placing that steel drawer filled with cash on the table ended complaints.]

At least three and probably a half dozen more employees left because they did not like the new standards, allowing upgrading, offering incentive compensation, near autonomy and work freedom.

As for me not paying taxes, even with legally designed business operations, I'll venture this ol' country boy has paid and pays more taxes than any four of you neo-cons combined.

[If I were starting over today, everything would go into a Living Trust. I would control everything, own nothing.]

Plus, there are are people who have come into my operations several decades ago right up to 2009, who are paying serious taxes today because they were presented an opportunity to work and earn the rewards.

I did not give them a thing, they earned it all.

What I did was help them structure their own operations to reduce the tax bite as much as possible, in the business WE were building.

As for me outlining the mental level of certain individuals who have attacked me repeatedly.

SIMPLE FACT -- I have not opened the ball once.

You will notice, I manage to get the message across without obscenities, profanities or the old Anglo-Saxon vulgarities.

Different addle-pated idiots on here have hurled wild slanders at me, Iggy, Mike, Jaded American and others.

One bright light referred to the present Supreme Court as a "liberal court", which is without question one of the least intelligent things seen here.

When any number of you UberConservative writers repeatedly reveal a complete lack of understanding for the political and governance realities -- DO NOT EXPECT RESPECT.

Research your facts and history -- Read multiple serious publications and present valid arguments.

But to simply throw out some wild statement because you feel it makes a legitimate point, only weakens your own position.

Case in point, blaming Pres. Obama for the increasing deficits and debts in the federal budget -- which was the last BUSH budget.

Bush/Cheney left two completely mis-managed wars.

Primarily mis-managed because they disregarded the professional military leadership, until Gates replaced Rumsfeld.

Gates ignored both both Bush and Cheney, and told Cheney to stay to thunder out of the Pentagon, and made it stick.

Gates conferred with the field commanders, the troops and the top brass in Western Asia and the Pentagon.

Go back a few years.

Despite his many flaws and eventual downfall, Nixon inherited the Viet Nam mess.

By that time, the McNamara Whiz Kids and "Westy" Westmoreland had so totally mismanaged the situation, South Viet Nam was lost -- unless we wanted to resort to nuclear weapons.

That military leadership totally mismanaged the withdrawal. Anyone who witnessed frantic Americans and their local friends trying to climb on helicopters high atop buildings knew then that our withdrawal formula was a disaster.

But Nixon correctly made the hard decisions.

He opened China, which was one of the major diplomatic moves in history.

Because Nixon was recorded using gutter language at great lengths, was involved in the Watergate burglary and denied it until trapped by his own words -- does not mean we disregard the good he accomplished.

Bluntly, despite DubYah's grandstanding and sanctimonious pride in his religiousosity, his presidency was worse than mediocre compared with Nixon.

Carter, with his obsession with micro-managing and refusal to delegate authority and responsibility, did an overall better job. Even with the Iran hostage mess.

well right_all_the_time, it's fairly simple, even though you will reject it. Low taxes versus high taxes do not equate to trickle down economics. Trickle down starts with tax cuts to the rich and then they go out and spend that extra money (in theory, in practice they typically put that money away, they are rich because they know how to invest money) and the money eventually trickles down to the middle class and the poor and helps stimulute the economy and create jobs. Unemployment rates under Reagan who first started trickle reached a peak of 9.7% before finally starting to decline. Interesting to note that in Reagan's first term the unemployment rate was higher than it was in Carter's term. In each of Bush's first four years unemployment went up.

Compare the trickle down economics of Reagan and Bush which saw down turns in unemployment for an up tick in jobs to Clinton's eight years in office and you will see that every year Clinton was in office unemployment dropped. Under Clinton unemployment dropped from 7.5 in 1992 to 4.0 in 2000. Reagan as well saw an overall drop from 7.1 in 1980 to 5.5 in 1988 but that was after it continued to climb to 9.2 in 1982. Under George W. Bush unemployment rose from 4.0 in 2000 to 5.8 in 2008.

(source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm)

But to try to compare trickle down to low taxes doesn't work because low tax states are across the board, trickle down is designed to cut taxes only to the rich.

The link isn't working because of the parenthesis so here it is on it's own

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

I've always found it interesting on this blog that the people demanding respect the loudest and complaining about being called names the loudest are the ones doing the most disrespecting and name-calling (Justin, wallis CPB, Joe Buck).

Here's the thing. We are all going to disagree (Iggy and I who agree on just about everything had a huge dust up over me flagging him a few months ago over language, yet we never devolved to calling each other names or questioning the others intelligence. It was a disagreement) but where you guys differ is that you will stop at almost nothing to discredit those you don't agree with and you get ugly with it. Instead of proving your points you name call and question the intelligence of people. If you make a point and call it "fact" and someone calls you on it you rarely back up what you have said typically demanding that the people who have questioned you prove you wrong instead of proving yourself right.

Debate has completely devolved in American society today and the fault is squarely on talk radio, Fox News, and other supposed debate shows on television. What has basically happened is that you have men such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly who, when challenged on what they have said instead of calmly explaining their point and debating with someone they yell at the person, degrade the person, and act completely uncivil towards anyone who dare have a differing opinion.

If I disagree with you I'm not going to simply call you stupid (Justin) and berate you, I'm going to attempt to prove you wrong. If I end up being wrong then I am wrong.

I find it very interesting that this "liberal" court's (Joe) decision to completely lift restrictions off of corporations has only been defended on the right of the spectrum. but of course they would defend the decision because the bulk of their fundraising monies is collected from corporations. But the scary thing about this decision is that thanks to the vague language of the this "liberal" court it now clears the way for foreign interests to get involved in elections.

While I'm thinking of it, when the national Tea Party Express holds their convention this year why are they banning the press from covering it? I thought one of their major complaints was that government needed to be more transparent so these back room deals can be prevented and yet here they are doing the exact same thing? The more things change the more they stay the same I guess.

Mike,

Sorry, I haven't been on for awhile but I just need to clarify. I was never claiming that Scott Brown or Scott Kleeb were actually independents. I simply meant that Scott Brown sold himself as an independent and Scott Kleeb also sold himself as an independent even though they each had solid ties to the Republican and Democrat parties respectively. It's just interesting how similiar their campaigns were run although with different results.

McCook I understand much better now and I apologize that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Now that you have cleared it up the point and the comparisons are extremely good. Good job.

McCook's point was that Scott Brown RAN as an independent. He's not, he's not even in the same neighborhood as independent, but because he ran towards the middle and Coakley never challenged him on it, the independent voters believed that he would be a more middle of the road Senator.

Mike is right that I never claimed Scott Brown or Scott Kleeb were truly independents. They were both attached very closely to their parties. They both campaigned as "independent voices" but neither one was an authentic "independent voice".