Letter: He did what?

Barry Willoughby, Fort Myers

He did what?

A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama said JPMorgan was one of the best run financial institutions in the world. He had nothing but glowing praises for CEO Jamie Dimon after JPM lost over $2 billion.

Then, we learn Obama has up to $1 million deposited at JPM, perhaps money accumulated as a payoff for all the campaign contributions Dimon and JPM have given to the Obama money coffers. Of course, the mainstream media had very little to report about this.

Instead, in an attempt to placate Wall Street Occupiers and loyal Democrat Keynesian socialists, the story shifted to Obama insisting that a "tougher interpretation" of the regulations aimed at "preventing banks from making bets with their own money," be legislated.

What?

"Their" money?

How dare those financial institutions!

Obama's got up to a million dollars stashed away at JPM.

The audacity of President Obama to think all that money is his.

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Comments » 75

miamia writes:

As Obama travels the world, he's admittedly thinking of the next place for he and his family to vacation...of course on tax payer money. He feels he's entitled!

Pragmatic1 writes:

Barry, Barry, Barry -

What is it with you? You continue to act like the one trick pony. Your only thought is how much you hate Presidnet Obama.

Never a constructive idea. Never a positive thought. 22,000 posts on the web and all say the same thing.

Why bother?

Why not just send a Letter To The Editor with nothing on it? Just sign it Barry Willoughby. We will all get the "you hate President Obama" message.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to miamia:

As Obama travels the world, he's admittedly thinking of the next place for he and his family to vacation...of course on tax payer money. He feels he's entitled!

You try to make it sound like Bush and every other President before him haven't done the same thing.

By the way, do you really think they can ever have a "real" vacation?

And do you not believe that visiting another country can dramatically improve our relations with that country?

Like the Birther issue, you sound like someone who is really stretching to justify your dislike for someone. Stretching to a point of ridiculousness.

Pragmatic1 writes:

Barry Willoughby - Oh yeah, you also said ....

"Obama's got up to a million dollars stashed away at JPM."

First of all "Up to a million dollars" could mean $10.

Second, a least President Obama, who has all his money in a blind trust and has no control over it, has it somewhere in America.

Your guy Romney, who is your guy by default because Herman Cain is back making pizza or whatever, has hundreds of millions more and has purposely stashed it in banks in Switzerland, The Cayman Islands and The Bahamas.

The more you write the more you embarrass yourself.

Ironbutterfly writes:

Ah Barry, just seeing your name in the LTTE brings out the worst in the Ozombies.
After 3.5 years of Obama and his incompetent weakness we still have the die hards making excuses for him and his corrupt administration.

CarpeVeritas writes:

Barry, I enjoy your LTTEs, and your supporters' comments.

Obama is a Wall Street toady. Obama is a socialist who hates capitalism. Is he Che Guevara on on even days, and Nelson Rockefeller on odd days? No wonder he can't get anything done.

But I'm confused by a fellow-traveler writing that the president has "incompetent weakness." He's unable to be weak? You mean he's strong?

lb5361 writes:

If America let’s Romney into the White House, they must know that there won’t be another President Obama waiting in the wings to fix what gets broken. It’s so insulting to think that people think Romney is worthy of being compared to President Obama – it diminishes the nation. And it’s the height of ungratefulness for the work this Administration has slogged through to recover this country for the past three years, after Cheney and Bush marched happily out of the White house, leaving hundreds of thousands of troops in combat without an exit plan, leaving millions of Americans out of work and home, leaving their useless party without any direction – ripe for the picking by the worst elements of society. The whole thing makes me ill.

ChiDem writes:

in response to Writethinker:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Pssstt

Dodd Frank is in place.

It didn't work.

Did you really think it would?

Do you really think it was passed "for power to the people", not for the politicians to pick winners and losers?

You must also think Obamacare was to give power to the people, right?

And billions and green grants and loans, where 70% of the people are donors or bundlers for Obama, was done for power for the people?

Did you ever explain how Keynesian has not been a Trillion dollar waste?

Did you ever explain what Obama has accomplished to deserve your vote?

ChiDem writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Barry Willoughby - Oh yeah, you also said ....

"Obama's got up to a million dollars stashed away at JPM."

First of all "Up to a million dollars" could mean $10.

Second, a least President Obama, who has all his money in a blind trust and has no control over it, has it somewhere in America.

Your guy Romney, who is your guy by default because Herman Cain is back making pizza or whatever, has hundreds of millions more and has purposely stashed it in banks in Switzerland, The Cayman Islands and The Bahamas.

The more you write the more you embarrass yourself.

You didn't know about Obama's disclosure?

http://content.usatoday.com/communiti...#.T8d74IH4JP4

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_o...

10 million hits on Google.

Great research!!!!

I presume you also didn't know Romney gave his inheritance to charity and Cheney gave every dime of his Halliburton income to charity.

ChiDem writes:

in response to Jude:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Stealing is against the law.

CarpeVeritas writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Stealing is against the law.

Stealing is indeed against the law. Its thoroughly legal twin brother is supply-side economics.

Same result, but one gets you into a jail cell; the other gets you into a country club.

Heraclitus writes:

"Despite Being Warned, Right-Wing Media Buy Into The "BS" Claims About Obama's Spending Record"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012...

An excerpt:

"WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Under Obama Has Increased At The Lowest Rate Since The 1950s

"WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Growth Is Lower Than It Was Under Reagan, Clinton, And Both Bushes. Carney pointed to a May 22 column in The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch headlined "Obama spending binge never happened."

Then there's a neat chart. Reagan and Bush were the worst.

pmz writes:

There might have been a time when the neo-republican propaganda ministry broadcasting 24/7/365 had convinced the cult that they were patriotic keepers of freedom doing what was right for their country.

Surely that time is way, way past.

They have been exposed daily and completely to the truth by now. They know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they've been lied to and have repeated those lies endlessly. They have tried mightily to defend the indefensible and have been repelled at every attempt by the simple truth. By facts. By overwhelming evidence. By the realization that it took fanciful spinning of reality to make their case.

A tough position for normal people to be in. A hell for control freaks. The hell that breeds extremists.

They double down. More rigidity. They must be right. More lies. They must be right. More fanciful spin. They must be right. Get God on their side. They must be right.

What do control freaks do when they realize that they've publically and completely backed a loser? Losers.

What we see here every day.

anticorp writes:

Such nasty propaganda from the Obama haters. He has been such a postitive force for the country since the mess created by Repubulicans.

It has to be plain racism from the White Wingers. Nothing else explains it.

robinstp writes:

At least the president like a good American keeps his money with a U.S. bank, unlike some who prefer to hoard theirs offshore in the Cayman Islands.

pmz writes:

"Then, we learn Obama has up to $1 million deposited at JPM, perhaps money accumulated as a payoff for all the campaign contributions Dimon and JPM have given to the Obama money coffers. Of course, the mainstream media had very little to report about this."

The essence of Stinky's rant?

"We learn"

"up to"

"perhaps"

The combination of those words gets Stinky off of the hook for making the whole thing up.

ChiDem writes:

in response to CarpeVeritas:

Stealing is indeed against the law. Its thoroughly legal twin brother is supply-side economics.

Same result, but one gets you into a jail cell; the other gets you into a country club.

????

What does free market Capitalism have to do with stealing??

It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of stealing.

Maybe if you could explain it for the class.

Republicans want tax cuts so the PEOPLE spend the money to "stimulate". Tax cuts would give people extra money to spend with a retailer or service provider then it is going to be re-spent by the people who get those dollars, and the people getting that money will spend and with business getting better, more supplies will be needed more workers needed, and eventually the economic sputtering engine will take hold, get into a rhythm and start running smoothly".

Obama stimulus bill programs are a way to exercise his far-left views. Cash for Clunkers gives money to the failing Auto Big Business, while taxing everybody else and taxing the people and slowing their spending and taxing business owners who expand, invest and hire less.

How is taking money from American taxpayers and successful businesses and giving it to inefficient companies going to make the economy better. Cash for Clunkers was Obama's miracle cure. Helped the economy for two months. Screwed the American consumer with higher used car prices for years so less could be spent on other economy building products and services. But Union money could go into the laundering system and come out as cash for Obama. It is another way for him to spend America into deeper dept.

Neo-Keynesianism has been tried before. It was in Japan during their Lost Decade. FDR's Treasury Secretary admitted it was a a 15 year mistake, and was only ended with a major War. (Obama is promoting that as well)

Laffer theory is no longer a theory. It worked for JFK and others to shorten recessions. Obama and the way he ran Keynesian has created the longest employment recession in 70 years.

ASK YOURSELF, why have 20+ economic advisers quit the Obama administration, including FIVE Chief Economic Advisers. Can you think of a reason and explain it for us?

ChiDem writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

"Despite Being Warned, Right-Wing Media Buy Into The "BS" Claims About Obama's Spending Record"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012...

An excerpt:

"WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Under Obama Has Increased At The Lowest Rate Since The 1950s

"WSJ's MarketWatch: Federal Spending Growth Is Lower Than It Was Under Reagan, Clinton, And Both Bushes. Carney pointed to a May 22 column in The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch headlined "Obama spending binge never happened."

Then there's a neat chart. Reagan and Bush were the worst.

Is Median Matters still promoting that debunked fraud?

Even after the liberal WAPO gave it a Triple Pinocchio on their truth meter? (that converts to "massive lie" I believe)

I know Obama is repeating it because he believes that there are enough fools out there that will believe any lie that he feeds to them.

I can't believe that there are that may fools that would believe it, can you?

I noticed you really enjoyed the pictures.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

There might have been a time when the neo-republican propaganda ministry broadcasting 24/7/365 had convinced the cult that they were patriotic keepers of freedom doing what was right for their country.

Surely that time is way, way past.

They have been exposed daily and completely to the truth by now. They know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they've been lied to and have repeated those lies endlessly. They have tried mightily to defend the indefensible and have been repelled at every attempt by the simple truth. By facts. By overwhelming evidence. By the realization that it took fanciful spinning of reality to make their case.

A tough position for normal people to be in. A hell for control freaks. The hell that breeds extremists.

They double down. More rigidity. They must be right. More lies. They must be right. More fanciful spin. They must be right. Get God on their side. They must be right.

What do control freaks do when they realize that they've publically and completely backed a loser? Losers.

What we see here every day.

Someone who's wife posts here complaining how he is argumentative and mentally unstable, caller others losers?

From the "Other Half"

""""I am wondering if there are other lonely spouses out there caused by the addiction of their other half to this posting forum. It sure is for people who like to argue and gives them a good excuse to be rude to other people while hiding behind their computer screen. Lots of good could come if all the time spent here was put to good use out their in the real world. What happened to people giving their attention to their known friends and family rather than others they haven't met and just want to fight with? Your only true political power is when it comes time for you to vote. That is unless you are active in government as a profession or maybe a volunteer when needed. I don't believe this is a healthy environment to be spending many hours of the day in. It seems to help one to become argumentative and cynical. The other half."""

Petey, Petey, Petey. Your still avoiding treatment I see.

I find it interesting that your posts are normally the typical liberal attack of the person rather than the idea, as you have proven lack of counter ideas.

The posts you make about subject matter are so over the top or are completely wrong. This fits your wife's critique of your sole reason for posting, name calling, rude and argumentative, and it doesn't matter to you if you are wrong, or your statements false or just beyond absurd. It is the aggressive argument that is controlling your addiction.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

????

What does free market Capitalism have to do with stealing??

It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of stealing.

Maybe if you could explain it for the class.

Republicans want tax cuts so the PEOPLE spend the money to "stimulate". Tax cuts would give people extra money to spend with a retailer or service provider then it is going to be re-spent by the people who get those dollars, and the people getting that money will spend and with business getting better, more supplies will be needed more workers needed, and eventually the economic sputtering engine will take hold, get into a rhythm and start running smoothly".

Obama stimulus bill programs are a way to exercise his far-left views. Cash for Clunkers gives money to the failing Auto Big Business, while taxing everybody else and taxing the people and slowing their spending and taxing business owners who expand, invest and hire less.

How is taking money from American taxpayers and successful businesses and giving it to inefficient companies going to make the economy better. Cash for Clunkers was Obama's miracle cure. Helped the economy for two months. Screwed the American consumer with higher used car prices for years so less could be spent on other economy building products and services. But Union money could go into the laundering system and come out as cash for Obama. It is another way for him to spend America into deeper dept.

Neo-Keynesianism has been tried before. It was in Japan during their Lost Decade. FDR's Treasury Secretary admitted it was a a 15 year mistake, and was only ended with a major War. (Obama is promoting that as well)

Laffer theory is no longer a theory. It worked for JFK and others to shorten recessions. Obama and the way he ran Keynesian has created the longest employment recession in 70 years.

ASK YOURSELF, why have 20+ economic advisers quit the Obama administration, including FIVE Chief Economic Advisers. Can you think of a reason and explain it for us?

ChiDim fancies himself as an expert in business. Here's a real expert who explains slowly, compellingly and expertly why ChiDim is fundamentally wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

pmz writes:

in response to pmz:

ChiDim fancies himself as an expert in business. Here's a real expert who explains slowly, compellingly and expertly why ChiDim is fundamentally wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

BTW it also explains how Reagan Bush Bush rang up $16T in unpaid bills sent to future generations of Americans chasing the myth of voodoo economics.

Heraclitus writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Is Median Matters still promoting that debunked fraud?

Even after the liberal WAPO gave it a Triple Pinocchio on their truth meter? (that converts to "massive lie" I believe)

I know Obama is repeating it because he believes that there are enough fools out there that will believe any lie that he feeds to them.

I can't believe that there are that may fools that would believe it, can you?

I noticed you really enjoyed the pictures.

Note the date... May 24th of this year.

And... it looks like the matter is still under debate:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...

And this was from a website exposing "loberal bias".

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

ChiDim fancies himself as an expert in business. Here's a real expert who explains slowly, compellingly and expertly why ChiDim is fundamentally wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

""""I am wondering if there are other lonely spouses out there caused by the addiction of their other half to this posting forum. It sure is for people who like to argue and gives them a good excuse to be rude to other people while hiding behind their computer screen. Lots of good could come if all the time spent here was put to good use out their in the real world. What happened to people giving their attention to their known friends and family rather than others they haven't met and just want to fight with? Your only true political power is when it comes time for you to vote. That is unless you are active in government as a profession or maybe a volunteer when needed. I don't believe this is a healthy environment to be spending many hours of the day in. It seems to help one to become argumentative and cynical. The other half."""

Petey, Petey, Petey. Your still avoiding treatment I see.

ChiDem writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

Note the date... May 24th of this year.

And... it looks like the matter is still under debate:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...

And this was from a website exposing "loberal bias".

I did note the date.

You are posting something debunked days ago, by Obama's own liberal media WAPO.

No longer a debate.

Who are the fools that still bring it up. Even democrats are denouncing it.

Go back to the sandbox and build castles.

ChiDem writes:

in response to Writethinker:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Still avoiding reasons you are voting for Obama and not posting why Obama's Keynesian screwed up the economy while driving debt to unsustainable (COB quote) numbers.

Remember, the more you have to name call, the fewer facts you have on your side..

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Still avoiding reasons you are voting for Obama and not posting why Obama's Keynesian screwed up the economy while driving debt to unsustainable (COB quote) numbers.

Remember, the more you have to name call, the fewer facts you have on your side..

I see that you avoided the YouTube explanation as to where the Neo-republican $16T national debt came from. And why the dumbest possible path for Americans is to continue to pursue your " free" lunch.

You don't, in any way care as long as you get your free lunch. Half taxes on your income from wealth.

In fact, the failure of the country is of no concern to you. It's a detail. Screw the country that produced the wealth that you took.

I hope that you can sleep at night. No. I hope that you can't sleep at night. Traitor.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

I did note the date.

You are posting something debunked days ago, by Obama's own liberal media WAPO.

No longer a debate.

Who are the fools that still bring it up. Even democrats are denouncing it.

Go back to the sandbox and build castles.

There is nothing that ChiDim hates worse than the truth.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

ChiDim fancies himself as an expert in business. Here's a real expert who explains slowly, compellingly and expertly why ChiDim is fundamentally wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

Thanks for confirming my post with your lack of facts and name calling. Love watching losers wiggle.

""""""What does free market Capitalism have to do with stealing??""""

It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of stealing.

Maybe if you could explain it for the class.

Republicans want tax cuts so the PEOPLE spend the money to "stimulate". Tax cuts would give people extra money to spend with a retailer or service provider then it is going to be re-spent by the people who get those dollars, and the people getting that money will spend and with business getting better, more supplies will be needed more workers needed, and eventually the economic sputtering engine will take hold, get into a rhythm and start running smoothly".

Obama stimulus bill programs are a way to exercise his far-left views. Cash for Clunkers gives money to the failing Auto Big Business, while taxing everybody else and taxing the people and slowing their spending and taxing business owners who expand, invest and hire less.

How is taking money from American taxpayers and successful businesses and giving it to inefficient companies going to make the economy better. Cash for Clunkers was Obama's miracle cure. Helped the economy for two months. Screwed the American consumer with higher used car prices for years so less could be spent on other economy building products and services. But Union money could go into the laundering system and come out as cash for Obama. It is another way for him to spend America into deeper dept.

Neo-Keynesianism has been tried before. It was in Japan during their Lost Decade. FDR's Treasury Secretary admitted it was a a 15 year mistake, and was only ended with a major War. (Obama is promoting that as well)

Laffer theory is no longer a theory. It worked for JFK and others to shorten recessions. Obama and the way he ran Keynesian has created the longest employment recession in 70 years.

ASK YOURSELF, why have 20+ economic advisers quit the Obama administration, including FIVE Chief Economic Advisers. Can you think of a reason and explain it for us?

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Thanks for confirming my post with your lack of facts and name calling. Love watching losers wiggle.

""""""What does free market Capitalism have to do with stealing??""""

It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of stealing.

Maybe if you could explain it for the class.

Republicans want tax cuts so the PEOPLE spend the money to "stimulate". Tax cuts would give people extra money to spend with a retailer or service provider then it is going to be re-spent by the people who get those dollars, and the people getting that money will spend and with business getting better, more supplies will be needed more workers needed, and eventually the economic sputtering engine will take hold, get into a rhythm and start running smoothly".

Obama stimulus bill programs are a way to exercise his far-left views. Cash for Clunkers gives money to the failing Auto Big Business, while taxing everybody else and taxing the people and slowing their spending and taxing business owners who expand, invest and hire less.

How is taking money from American taxpayers and successful businesses and giving it to inefficient companies going to make the economy better. Cash for Clunkers was Obama's miracle cure. Helped the economy for two months. Screwed the American consumer with higher used car prices for years so less could be spent on other economy building products and services. But Union money could go into the laundering system and come out as cash for Obama. It is another way for him to spend America into deeper dept.

Neo-Keynesianism has been tried before. It was in Japan during their Lost Decade. FDR's Treasury Secretary admitted it was a a 15 year mistake, and was only ended with a major War. (Obama is promoting that as well)

Laffer theory is no longer a theory. It worked for JFK and others to shorten recessions. Obama and the way he ran Keynesian has created the longest employment recession in 70 years.

ASK YOURSELF, why have 20+ economic advisers quit the Obama administration, including FIVE Chief Economic Advisers. Can you think of a reason and explain it for us?

Democrats want to return to the same tax rates for income from wealth as income from work. That way we can do the responsible thing and pay our bills rather than expecting our kids to pay them. Do you really feel good about avoiding the personal responsibility of paying your own way?

You and Reagan's and both Bush's dream of something for nothing has almost sunk the country in debt, and yet you want to elect for President someone who'll give it another try.

If you had even a modicum of real business experience you'd know that wealth comes from workers and products and customers. No rich people in the equation.

But you don't have any idea where wealth comes from because you've never contributed to it. You've been a parasite all of your life and feel entitled to other peoples wealth now.

I hope before your life is over you'll get to experience the satisfaction of contributing to wealth production. Believe me it beats sucking on the public's teat.

Pragmatic1 writes:

in response to ChiDem:

You didn't know about Obama's disclosure?

http://content.usatoday.com/communiti...#.T8d74IH4JP4

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_o...

10 million hits on Google.

Great research!!!!

I presume you also didn't know Romney gave his inheritance to charity and Cheney gave every dime of his Halliburton income to charity.

I know that Romney used a tax loophole to pass on $100 million to his children - TAX FREE.

Then when his boys use it they only pay 15% capital gains tax as they do.

Compare that to the rate we would pay on a reasonable amount of wealth transfer and you will see he "saved" (at our expense) about $35 million.

As for his "charitable" deductions, let's not forget those tax deductions he would need anyway.

Why doesn't Romney like to talk about his only elected office as Governor of Mass.?

Hmmmmmmm.

pmz writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

I know that Romney used a tax loophole to pass on $100 million to his children - TAX FREE.

Then when his boys use it they only pay 15% capital gains tax as they do.

Compare that to the rate we would pay on a reasonable amount of wealth transfer and you will see he "saved" (at our expense) about $35 million.

As for his "charitable" deductions, let's not forget those tax deductions he would need anyway.

Why doesn't Romney like to talk about his only elected office as Governor of Mass.?

Hmmmmmmm.

Romney can't understand why the children of those who neo-republicans have reduced to poverty might need help. If the parents would just do the responsible thing, and give each child $10,000,000, then they wouldn't need help.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to ChiDem:

I did note the date.

You are posting something debunked days ago, by Obama's own liberal media WAPO.

No longer a debate.

Who are the fools that still bring it up. Even democrats are denouncing it.

Go back to the sandbox and build castles.

Post evidence to the contrary..

"Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...

You read like a little girl.
Man up and get some proof in here...

Pragmatic1 writes:

Barry

Ok, here we go.

To wrap up comments so far

Of 43 total posts to your letter ...

28 posts think you are wrong
1 post agrees with you (sort of)
12 have nothing to do with your letter (they are almost all from ChiDem who jumps in anywhere to complain about anything)

28 to 1, Barry

Are you getting the message that after 22,000 posts on this site about the only one who agrees with you also has to sleep with you?

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Thanks for confirming my post with your lack of facts and name calling. Love watching losers wiggle.

""""""What does free market Capitalism have to do with stealing??""""

It is at the opposite end of the spectrum of stealing.

Maybe if you could explain it for the class.

Republicans want tax cuts so the PEOPLE spend the money to "stimulate". Tax cuts would give people extra money to spend with a retailer or service provider then it is going to be re-spent by the people who get those dollars, and the people getting that money will spend and with business getting better, more supplies will be needed more workers needed, and eventually the economic sputtering engine will take hold, get into a rhythm and start running smoothly".

Obama stimulus bill programs are a way to exercise his far-left views. Cash for Clunkers gives money to the failing Auto Big Business, while taxing everybody else and taxing the people and slowing their spending and taxing business owners who expand, invest and hire less.

How is taking money from American taxpayers and successful businesses and giving it to inefficient companies going to make the economy better. Cash for Clunkers was Obama's miracle cure. Helped the economy for two months. Screwed the American consumer with higher used car prices for years so less could be spent on other economy building products and services. But Union money could go into the laundering system and come out as cash for Obama. It is another way for him to spend America into deeper dept.

Neo-Keynesianism has been tried before. It was in Japan during their Lost Decade. FDR's Treasury Secretary admitted it was a a 15 year mistake, and was only ended with a major War. (Obama is promoting that as well)

Laffer theory is no longer a theory. It worked for JFK and others to shorten recessions. Obama and the way he ran Keynesian has created the longest employment recession in 70 years.

ASK YOURSELF, why have 20+ economic advisers quit the Obama administration, including FIVE Chief Economic Advisers. Can you think of a reason and explain it for us?

Try to remember, the Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2001 and 2003.

Ask yourself?
How long before they take effect?

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to Pragmatic1:

Barry

Ok, here we go.

To wrap up comments so far

Of 43 total posts to your letter ...

28 posts think you are wrong
1 post agrees with you (sort of)
12 have nothing to do with your letter (they are almost all from ChiDem who jumps in anywhere to complain about anything)

28 to 1, Barry

Are you getting the message that after 22,000 posts on this site about the only one who agrees with you also has to sleep with you?

I heard he sleeps in his own apartment, now.
...

...

...

...

And Jackie has Barry on the couch.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Democrats want to return to the same tax rates for income from wealth as income from work. That way we can do the responsible thing and pay our bills rather than expecting our kids to pay them. Do you really feel good about avoiding the personal responsibility of paying your own way?

You and Reagan's and both Bush's dream of something for nothing has almost sunk the country in debt, and yet you want to elect for President someone who'll give it another try.

If you had even a modicum of real business experience you'd know that wealth comes from workers and products and customers. No rich people in the equation.

But you don't have any idea where wealth comes from because you've never contributed to it. You've been a parasite all of your life and feel entitled to other peoples wealth now.

I hope before your life is over you'll get to experience the satisfaction of contributing to wealth production. Believe me it beats sucking on the public's teat.

Just a minute there. You spent the better part of last week (and then some) lecturing us about how the equity markets (and other sources of capital gains) are part of a "zero sum game". In your words, no wealth or value is created in those markets. In your analysis, for every winner, there is a loser. Hence, no net wealth is added.

If we assume that you were right with that logic, then taxing that activity will not pay for anything. Increasing taxes on a zero net increase in wealth will necessarily lead to a net zero tax increase. For every capital gain, there would have to be a capital loss, and so no added tax benefit or increase in tax revenues. To quote one teacher from years ago, "fifty per cent of nothing [zero] is still F! - all." He was right with the math. Any per centage of zero will still be zero.

So, now let's get back to your assertion. You wouldn't be trying to pull a fast one on us, would you?

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Just a minute there. You spent the better part of last week (and then some) lecturing us about how the equity markets (and other sources of capital gains) are part of a "zero sum game". In your words, no wealth or value is created in those markets. In your analysis, for every winner, there is a loser. Hence, no net wealth is added.

If we assume that you were right with that logic, then taxing that activity will not pay for anything. Increasing taxes on a zero net increase in wealth will necessarily lead to a net zero tax increase. For every capital gain, there would have to be a capital loss, and so no added tax benefit or increase in tax revenues. To quote one teacher from years ago, "fifty per cent of nothing [zero] is still F! - all." He was right with the math. Any per centage of zero will still be zero.

So, now let's get back to your assertion. You wouldn't be trying to pull a fast one on us, would you?

I see that you are an amateur investor.

Equity investing is betting on stock prices in a free market. If those of us who create wealth didn't continuously do so, those prices would be truly random, and losers would = winners.

But, there are workers at those companies that create increasingly valuable products that get sold to customers. Some companies more so, and some less so. So, because of the workers, products and customers, wealth is produced and sold and many companies, in fact the average company, goes up in value.

So, the trick of investing is to be a better guesser than others in the market of the rate of that value increase.

If you win a bet, the person that you bought the stock from lost his bet. He sold when he should of held. His loss is virtual but your win is real.

So, as long as the market tends upwards as a result of workers, products and customers, on the average, money is made.

Neo-republicans see a difference between the money won on this betting and the money paid to workers for the value that they add through their work. They believe that the non-workers should be favored by tax rates and the wealth creating workers, dis-favored.

Nuts, huh?

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

I see that you are an amateur investor.

Equity investing is betting on stock prices in a free market. If those of us who create wealth didn't continuously do so, those prices would be truly random, and losers would = winners.

But, there are workers at those companies that create increasingly valuable products that get sold to customers. Some companies more so, and some less so. So, because of the workers, products and customers, wealth is produced and sold and many companies, in fact the average company, goes up in value.

So, the trick of investing is to be a better guesser than others in the market of the rate of that value increase.

If you win a bet, the person that you bought the stock from lost his bet. He sold when he should of held. His loss is virtual but your win is real.

So, as long as the market tends upwards as a result of workers, products and customers, on the average, money is made.

Neo-republicans see a difference between the money won on this betting and the money paid to workers for the value that they add through their work. They believe that the non-workers should be favored by tax rates and the wealth creating workers, dis-favored.

Nuts, huh?

LOL...yes, you are nuts. No doubt about it.

You still haven't proven your base assertion, which by the way, would require university professors all over the country to revise there curriculum.

Assuming of course, you weren't nuts.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

I see that you are an amateur investor.

Equity investing is betting on stock prices in a free market. If those of us who create wealth didn't continuously do so, those prices would be truly random, and losers would = winners.

But, there are workers at those companies that create increasingly valuable products that get sold to customers. Some companies more so, and some less so. So, because of the workers, products and customers, wealth is produced and sold and many companies, in fact the average company, goes up in value.

So, the trick of investing is to be a better guesser than others in the market of the rate of that value increase.

If you win a bet, the person that you bought the stock from lost his bet. He sold when he should of held. His loss is virtual but your win is real.

So, as long as the market tends upwards as a result of workers, products and customers, on the average, money is made.

Neo-republicans see a difference between the money won on this betting and the money paid to workers for the value that they add through their work. They believe that the non-workers should be favored by tax rates and the wealth creating workers, dis-favored.

Nuts, huh?

Let's put aside for the moment that you failed to correlate your earlier lecture on the "zero sum nature" of investing in capital markets with today's [pmz] thesis that wealth creation results solely from worker contributions for the average business.

If we adopt your reasoning, it must follow that workers in below average companies lose investors' wealth because those workers are not doing what they should be doing- creating wealth. We can think of many examples, Kodak being one of them. Those workers drained the wealth from the company to the point that the company went into bankruptcy. That's a terrible thing for you to claim. Why you would do that is anyone's guess. My bet is that you didn't think it through very carefully.

BTW, which "us" were you referring to when you wrote, "If those of US who create wealth didn't continuously do so, those prices would be truly random, and losers would = winners"? According to your thesis you could not possibly have been referring to former Kodak employees.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Let's put aside for the moment that you failed to correlate your earlier lecture on the "zero sum nature" of investing in capital markets with today's [pmz] thesis that wealth creation results solely from worker contributions for the average business.

If we adopt your reasoning, it must follow that workers in below average companies lose investors' wealth because those workers are not doing what they should be doing- creating wealth. We can think of many examples, Kodak being one of them. Those workers drained the wealth from the company to the point that the company went into bankruptcy. That's a terrible thing for you to claim. Why you would do that is anyone's guess. My bet is that you didn't think it through very carefully.

BTW, which "us" were you referring to when you wrote, "If those of US who create wealth didn't continuously do so, those prices would be truly random, and losers would = winners"? According to your thesis you could not possibly have been referring to former Kodak employees.

You know, of course that your opinion is meaningless to me.

I made the point no matter what red herring you'd like to drag across the path.

Trading equities does nothing to create wealth any more than casinos do. It's parasitic as it takes wealth away from it's customers.

For every transaction one Wall St cowboy is betting that "buy" is the right strategy while some other cowboy is betting on "sell". Both can't be right.

Your assumption about Kodak: anybody with experience as a wealth creator would know is that in any corporation the results represent the average decision maker. I'm confident that my contributions made me a significant value adder for Kodak. Some others lost value by their contribution. Unfortunately, with Kodak, the conservatives who focused on cost savings out influenced those of us who focused on investment and growth.

That's why I'm so focused on preventing the same thing being done by people like you to the country.

pmz writes:

in response to trader9:

LOL...yes, you are nuts. No doubt about it.

You still haven't proven your base assertion, which by the way, would require university professors all over the country to revise there curriculum.

Assuming of course, you weren't nuts.

What you mean to say is that you don't understand the investment business any more than you understand macro-economics and civics.

I agree.

pmz writes:

Notice that the hasty retreat of the neo-republicans leaves out any rationale for halving the taxes on income from market gambling compared to working for a living.

It's truly indefensible, but it means more for them and less for you so they try their best to disguise it.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

You know, of course that your opinion is meaningless to me.

I made the point no matter what red herring you'd like to drag across the path.

Trading equities does nothing to create wealth any more than casinos do. It's parasitic as it takes wealth away from it's customers.

For every transaction one Wall St cowboy is betting that "buy" is the right strategy while some other cowboy is betting on "sell". Both can't be right.

Your assumption about Kodak: anybody with experience as a wealth creator would know is that in any corporation the results represent the average decision maker. I'm confident that my contributions made me a significant value adder for Kodak. Some others lost value by their contribution. Unfortunately, with Kodak, the conservatives who focused on cost savings out influenced those of us who focused on investment and growth.

That's why I'm so focused on preventing the same thing being done by people like you to the country.

Very enlightening, at least insofar as your professorial thesis is concerned. It all boils down to you being confident that you were a significant value adder. I bet that there are many others like me who feel that you've erased all doubt, forever.

Let's recap. By 11:30 pm, your latest findings disclosed that the value of an investment in Kodak represented the "average decision maker". But earlier yesterday, you were lecturing us about how wealth is created by workers. Thank you for keeping us all up to date on your latest research. It's no wonder that so few can understand such a complex and continuously evolving field of human knowledge.

Allow me to summarize so that we do not lose the focus of your unique insight. Your point is, that positive wealth growth is the sole result of workers' contributions, and failed investments are the result of the average decision maker.

It's amazing that you so easily correlated workers with growth and average decision makers with bankruptcy. That's brilliant! And you made it all seem so easy. You've also explained why it's absolutely essential to label someone so that anyone can use your correlation to either blame or credit someone else for an observed result. That is very important for those who cannot possibly understand the intricacies of the marketplace, taxation and economics.

I am puzzled why no one else thought of this before you did. Thank you for sharing your findings with other NDN readers. You owe it to humanity to publish in as many languages as possible. You can ask titanbite to help you with the English language version.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Very enlightening, at least insofar as your professorial thesis is concerned. It all boils down to you being confident that you were a significant value adder. I bet that there are many others like me who feel that you've erased all doubt, forever.

Let's recap. By 11:30 pm, your latest findings disclosed that the value of an investment in Kodak represented the "average decision maker". But earlier yesterday, you were lecturing us about how wealth is created by workers. Thank you for keeping us all up to date on your latest research. It's no wonder that so few can understand such a complex and continuously evolving field of human knowledge.

Allow me to summarize so that we do not lose the focus of your unique insight. Your point is, that positive wealth growth is the sole result of workers' contributions, and failed investments are the result of the average decision maker.

It's amazing that you so easily correlated workers with growth and average decision makers with bankruptcy. That's brilliant! And you made it all seem so easy. You've also explained why it's absolutely essential to label someone so that anyone can use your correlation to either blame or credit someone else for an observed result. That is very important for those who cannot possibly understand the intricacies of the marketplace, taxation and economics.

I am puzzled why no one else thought of this before you did. Thank you for sharing your findings with other NDN readers. You owe it to humanity to publish in as many languages as possible. You can ask titanbite to help you with the English language version.

We can add poor loser to your other faults.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

We can add poor loser to your other faults.

Your response correlates well with your thesis.

woods311 writes:

in response to ruf462:

Your response correlates well with your thesis.

I thought you had learned not to try to debate a yap yap ankle biter.

Just shout "GO HOME DAMMMIT" (that's his name,
Aunt Tillie is looking for you!!!

ruf462 writes:

in response to woods311:

I thought you had learned not to try to debate a yap yap ankle biter.

Just shout "GO HOME DAMMMIT" (that's his name,
Aunt Tillie is looking for you!!!

Add that to the long list of many things that I have not learned as yet.

BTW, I am glad to see that you are alive and well. Carry on.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

Your response correlates well with your thesis.

My response correlates well with your thesis is what you mean.

As my mother used to say, "you've made your bed, now lie in it".

nstinks writes:

For those of you who happen to believe your President has been a great leader given the state of the country that he "inherited."

What's worse........squandering an inheritance full of richness and opportunity.....or an admission your inheritance was beyond your ability to cope and lead?

Since when has it been acceptable for Americans to offer excuses in the absence of success?

Just think what Romney is going to inherit after four years of Obama.

Did you take note of the latest jobs report and the stock market plunge?

Consumer confidence is plunging.

Poor Romney.

I hope you liberals will give him all the support and respect he deserves.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to woods311:

I thought you had learned not to try to debate a yap yap ankle biter.

Just shout "GO HOME DAMMMIT" (that's his name,
Aunt Tillie is looking for you!!!

DAMMMIT likes to lift his rhetorical leg all over the LTE section. A little here, a little there, then moves along to the next topic.

Always the same waste product, repeated ad nauseum, declaring dominion over his "territory" as he goes.

The current format makes him very difficult for Aunt Tilly to catch up with at her age.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features