patrick.net

TechGromit says

Hey your right. And cutting the defense budget isn’t going to solve our deficit crisis, so why bother? Cutting the federal employees raises isn’t going to solve it and raising the retirement age isn’t either, so let not even bother to do those things. Do you know where we end up? Right were we are now, do nothing, stall, until I get re-elected again. Then who cares for another 2 years. Then blame the other party, it’s all there fault I tried to fix things, but they are crazy, but if you re-elect me I’ll make everything better.

This situation isn’t going to be solved with one stroke of the pen, it’s going to take a lot of little sacrifices, and this government isn’t willing to sacrifice anything. I seriously fear for the future, Hyperinflation is the only way out of this mess. Congress shows a compete lack of willpower to change. Tea party or not, its the same animal, just different colors.

Well said, I agree completely. And every time we kick the can down the road, the sacrifices we will have later just get bigger. I believe that it is possible to stall things too long, with an end result as you say of hyper inflation, or even worse the end of democracy as we know it (knew it).

I don't know the answer, but I believe some kind of very real campaign finance reform would be a start.

shrekgrinch says

The average we get in income tax revenues is 19.5%, with the lows and highs I just mentioned and you acknowledge.

What part of the word average don't you understand? It means more was collected some years and less in others. Not that 19.5% was collected every single year. Your argument just doesn't make any sense other than to say the average collections is less than the current expenditures. So what's your point? This not any great leap in the fund of human knowledge.

You guys are just being ridiculous anyway. Taxes must go up, spending must go down, the excesses of the past must be paid for somehow. Any not too bright 7 year old can do the math on this one. Will it happen before a major economy destroying crisis. Not likely.

marcus says

Tenouncetrout says

You Libs could give a Rats ass about the American people

Right wing commentator Charles Krauthammer (in the W. post)

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

Under these circumstances it’s clear to me which party cares less about the people. As a purely hypothetical (and I know you could argue the premise), if saving this country and our long term economy truly came down to whether or not we will have much more progressive taxation of high incomes, which would the republicans choose ?

You quote me then follow it up with an unrelated, you're preaching to the choir about the Republicans to me Boss. Let's just Argue my precepcion about the Liberals and leave the "other" party America could do with out. I'm tired of this broken two party system, and you wont get nowhere with me counter arguing "What the damned ole Republicans done did."

Why did health care stocks go up if the mandate to buy insurance was knocked down? Something doesn't add up.

shrekgrinch says

No, it doesn’t. It says that there is an average. Hauser NEVER said it was constant.

Nice backpedal. So Hauser's brilliant law is that if you look at the history of revenue collection in the US you can calculate an average? Holy shit! Break out the Nobel prize. That is earth shattering wisdom there.

shrekgrinch says

Same when it comes to raising income taxes on the rich but expecting a corresponding increase in income tax revenues X to cover much higher spending Y when X

I don't think you grasp something. Spending and revenue are two different things. You can increase or decrease revenue irregardless of what you do with spending. Should the US spend less? Of course. I don't think anyone will argue with you about that one.

shrekgrinch says

Hauser’s Law proves that NO MATTER WHAT THE TAX RATES ARE, the feds can only get on average 19.5% of GDP from income tax revenues. But the Feds are spending way more than 19.5% of GDP consistently and that rate is to go up as the boomer’s retire.

It proves nothing of the sort. You really need some remedial math. It proves only that the average was 19.5% over the time period in question. You are making a HUGE leap that is not founded.

clambo says

Spending, debt, and taxes are all drags on the individual and business which hurts the USA.

Except, there are government services which must be paid for. Everything from nuclear weapons to FDA. The problem is the rich don't want to pay for it, they want YOU to pay for it. Or better yet to keep piling it up in deficit until the system collapses. By which time they'll move to some island with their loot to escape the conflagration. Very much like the Wall Streeters who KNEW the system they were running would blow up but they kept going because the goal was "cross your fingers and empty the safe as fast as you can". Keep it up suckers! I find it a laugh riot that people actually worship capitalist sociopaths in this country.

shrekgrinch says

What drives me nuts is all the idiots who say: “Raise their income taxes [which what they are advocating when they scream about the Bush tax cuts] and we’ll balance the budget then!” when we won’t come even close.

Then let's just say it'd be "a good start". The alternative is to say "let's not even bother" which is essentially what we've just done. Like the student who knows his assignment is late, is given a chance to turn it in late but with points off, then goes home and plays video games instead.

shrekgrinch says

I am not the one making any leaps by insisting that we can’t expect enough in income tax revenues despite whatever tax rates we impose since THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN INCOME TAX HISTORY and since the politicians KNOW THIS and thus want to tap additional tax sources like carbon and value added taxes.

I can't tell what you are claiming. If you are claiming that we can't raise taxes enough to get to 27% of GDP, then I might agree with you. If you are claiming that no matter what the tax rates are, the revenue is the same, then you are completely insane. Did you understand that the difference between 14.4% of GDP and 20.9% of GDP is $1T? Did you notice that US tax revenue DECREASED after the Bush tax cuts went into effect???

Not to mention that the wealth disparity is extremely high right now. If you don't think that has profound effects on the US tax revenues, then you need to stop posting. There is a strong interaction between wealth disparity and tax rates on tax revenues...

shrekgrinch says

What drives me nuts is all the idiots who say: “Raise their income taxes [which what they are advocating when they scream about the Bush tax cuts] and we’ll balance the...

Ah yes, those idiots who say "Lets increase the income, it'll increase the income." Those idiots.

Anyway, as far as I can see no one is saying that raising the tax rates to previously acceptable levels would full on BALANCE the budge, only that it'll help. There are your half-truths and contextual slips coming through again.

The core denial of Republicans is that they're actually coherent and responsible when it comes to economic policy. The other one, a close second, is that they actually care about balancing the budget. What they do seem to care about is 'getting more' for themselves, and 'starving the beast'. Near as I can tell those are the two primary driving forces in Republican policy today, and the current third being to do whatever it takes to deny Obama a second term even if it leads to harming the general population through shitty economic policy or a gridlocked government, which also leads back to 'starving the beast'...

But hasn't this all been said a few dozen times before on this list?...

You say "go after rich folk's assets" as if this were the lowest thing to do, a deceitful and tricky horrible thing. As if asking people who've benefited most from the advantages of their society to give back a little were a bad thing... and anyway, what does constitute class warfare to you? Clearly the systematic looting of poorer peoples' assets through tax give aways to corporations and the like does not constitute class warfare, but asking wealthy people to resume payments at a level that was previously acceptable before Bush catered to 'his base' does. Its pretty clear to me that ‘actually worship[ping] capitalist sociopaths in this country’ is pretty much your position.

blah blah blah...

thunderlips11 says

Probably they’ll Kennedy will keep the individual mandate, but strip out the pre-existing coverage stuff.

ftfy. Thing is, the mandate is basically a conservative idea. The friggin' Heritage Foundation itself had it in its plans, as did the 1993 Republican plan.

And of course RomneyCare.

This does not mean that it is not unconstitutional. But I think Congress constructed things correctly to pass that test.

1) Interstate commerce
2) Rational basis
3) Necessary & Proper
4) 16th Amendment power to tax incomes

As for insurance money, I do like the 80-85% requirement for MLRs. Almost as good as socialism -- similar to the originally Progressive Era idea of licensed utilities with a fixed profit margin.

Without a mandate & insurance companies forced to cover the deadbeats who wait to apply until they get a serious illness, that only means this is an unworkable plan.

It's both, or none.

or it could be done like every other industrialized country that has a modern healthcare system; factor it into the base taxes.

deadbeats who wait to apply until they get a serious illness

dunno - how does that theory play out with other forms of insurance, like car insurance? do you see the same thing?

...then we will have no federal system of government any more

Hyperbole much?...

But this topic's been covered in other posts...
kentm says

I was wondering...

But I did notice one thing about the ruling that I'd like to post here, one part I hope you'll find as amusing as I did, and because I'm petty I went back and dug up an earlier post:

shrekgrinch says

kentm says

My initial question is to the third part: Do you consider a traffic ticket a tax?” If you say yes then you can call anything a tax. The reason I suppose this is “levied through their income taxes” is that its a surefire way of getting the cash but you can’t call it a tax, its a fine

Uhhh….what? What planet are you presently on?

So. Here's a link to the ruling:
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf

and in there you'll find one little part that says:

* That the mandate could not be reframed as a "tax," as it was not designed to raise revenue but rather to penalize behavior.

So in response that earlier question I guess I have to say 'the real one'.

cheers

kentm says

or it could be done like every other industrialized country that has a modern healthcare system; factor it into the base taxes.

deadbeats who wait to apply until they get a serious illness

dunno - how does that theory play out with other forms of insurance, like car insurance? do you see the same thing?

Car insurance is mandatory in all states so I don't see how it can compare.

I don't see any sticky wicket. The court had no trouble in the recent past ruling that a citizen who was doing nothing wrong and was under no suspicion of any kind has to produce his papers for the police and that the state has the right to take your land for another private individual to use. As someone who grew up in a very different America 60 years ago both of these rulings stunned me. I would have never dreamed it to be possible. The idea of police roadblocks with police asking for your papers without being part of a serious criminal manhunt was unthinkable back then. So why can't the SC rule that the government can force you to buy health care.

Yet another reason to hold multiple citizenships.

kentm says

or it could be done like every other industrialized country that has a modern healthcare system; factor it into the base taxes.

THAT'S OBAMO-MARXI-SOCIALISM!

shrekgrinch says

Go back and read. Try getting an education first…especially in the realm of ‘reading comprehension’.

bob2356 says

Not that 19.5% was collected every single year.

I said that, moron.

Ok so I'm a moron. Considering your blind devotion to the silliness of Hauser I'll consider that a compliment of the highest order.

So you don't see any problems with Hauser's "theory". I'll give you a hint. The words "top tax rate" for a start. You don't see any problems with using that single tax data point to compare to the whole of government revenue. Gee I wonder what happened to social program collections and corporate income tax part of government revenue. Talk about comparing apples to nuclear bombs.

Oh, by the way what happened Hausers extensive analysis into the changes to the rest of the tax structure? Oops. Maybe you have no clue (Hauser correctly decided to ignore it since the reality conflicts very heavily with his theory) about this but the top tax rate has been lowered while increasing the lower tax brackets. That's the beauty of the whole Reagan tax reform. The top people got dramatically less taxes, everyone else got screwed.

The only thing Hauser has provided is a meaningless sound bite perfect cover to the devotee's of the laffler curve. I read a great quote about laffler and Hauser several years ago and am delighted to be able to find it again:

Hauser's Law joins the Laffer Curve* in the dustbin of right-wing voodoo economic theory. The only people who promote either are the people who, one way or another, benefit by doing so. Like those paragons of objective, scientific analysis at the WSJ editorial page.

*My favorite quote about the Laffer Curve came from my econ professor, who said "The Laffer Curve is relevant to policy in exactly the same way that the melting point of steel is relevant to washing the dishes."

Are you Kidding? Why would anyone buy in the next 10 -15 years? at least not in Ca. Oil will shortly be 200 plus a barrel and fuel costs will be yet another giant cost to living, and working. I also seem to sense that the Aging Baby boomers are going to eat up resources for health care, and while many homes will be needed for assisted living, and all. I don't see how with China, and India coming in to their own, and all you need to do is LISTEN to the Large Auto-manufactures they all expect to sell more and more until the majority of cars sold will be in China. (thusly causing oil at 200-300 a BBL.) That is but some of the scenario I see heading this way, I am not looking forward to it. I can say that. I am 51 and know I will never buy again.

kentm says

dunno - how does that theory play out with other forms of insurance, like car insurance? do you see the same thing?

No, car insurance companies aren't forced to issue policies to people who just had an accident yesterday, while uninsured, and want to have the insurance pick up the tab after the fact.

3/10

I am not the only one who understands the basic math involved that many of you can’t quite seem to grasp

This is not a good faith argument, and is why I have you on ignore.

Laffer Curve exists, but not at 30-40% marginal taxation.

Why are you comparing a 3 bedroom rent with a 4 bed 2.5 ? Just curious

tatupu70 says

It proves nothing of the sort. You really need some remedial math. It proves only that the average was 19.5% over the time period in question. You are making a HUGE leap that is not founded.

Let's see,... if the government taxed at 0%, they would have revenue of zero.

If the government taxed at 100%, they would also get close to zero.

But apparently, at any level of taxation that allows the economy to function, revenues will be close to 19.5%of GDP. Assuming that this absurd idea is true, we would still need optimize how progressive the tax code is. Even most of the wealthy (if they aren't idiots) know that taking the tax on income above 250K (that is, just the part of the income that is over 250K) from 35 to 39 does no harm to the economy, but does boost revenues by an extremely predictable amount.

This is not even disputed in most intelligent conservative circles. The deal was a gift to the rich, and everyone knows it. Sure if they were going from 50% to 70% you might make and argument about it. But 35 to 39 ? Give me a fucking break.

bob2356 says

*My favorite quote about the Laffer Curve came from my econ professor, who said “The Laffer Curve is relevant to policy in exactly the same way that the melting point of steel is relevant to washing the dishes.”

Good one.

shrekgrinch says

marcus says

I enjoy this site a lot more when I have them both on ignore.

Then why don’t you? Hell, if you did you wouldn’t even see this forum posting at all because I submitted it. You liberals are so full of shit.

If one uses the ignore feature, there is also a "show all posts feature" I can use if say, maybe I am feeling, "I wonder what the dim bulb is spouting today ?"

shrekgrinch says

Let me summarize all that for you since you can’t quite grasp all of this:

Since the government can NEVER collect enough in income tax revenues from the rich (or all of us in total) to balance the budget at etc, etc, ....

I have tried to explain to you several times, and this is really just for others because I know either you can't or won't consider it.

Higher taxes on the rich, are not just about increasing govt revenues (which they will). It's about paying our bills, which is obviously the only way that the rich members congress and their benefactors will be forced to make the tough choices on spending.

Do you really want lower spending ?

It would work. But maybe the rich and corporations don't like the idea because it might ultimately also cause compromises on spending priorities ( eg social services versus war spending for one).

Not enough facts given to determine the choice.

price, local rent and size are not the only 3 variables. There are other items like, regulation, structural integrity, location, number of floors, floor plan, etc...

shrekgrinch says

ideological programming about taxes

Bingo.

People probably bring up Laffer because if it were true that tax revenues are always 19.5% of GDP, and if the Laffer curve is also real (that is the simple concept that there is a tax level that will maximize tax revenues), then there must therefore be a level of taxation that will allow for a maximal GDP.

(By the way I am for now only supposing your inference about Hausers law is correct - although almost by definition it is nothing more than a weak rationalization)

The argument you make, is based on the faulty logic that increased taxes MUST cause lower GDP, because of less investment. But if that were true, then marginal taxes on high income could never be too low.

I do agree with Troy, that if calling me uneducated is your best argument, then this more than any argument I can make refutes your point. And the reason I think you are Ray, is that people have brought up several legitimate critiques in this thread that you ignore or respond to with name calling.

. . . on the ol' troll-o-meter

shrekgrinch says

Nope, they did not:

shrekgrinch says

Hudson ruled that Congress does not have authority to impose such a

in the opinion of one hack GWB-appointed judge, yes.

http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/

As for getting politicians to support single payer, not gonna happen in this corrupted system we've got.

Clinton got utterly creamed thinking he could take that bridge in '93. Waay too much money opposing that.

Plus half the country has been conditioned to oppose more government involvement in this area.

shrekgrinch says

Laffer Curve has NOTHING to do with Hauser’s Law. So I didn’t make the argument that you are ignoring. Therefore what you are really ignoring is the harsh realities I am mentioning that you just don’t want to hear/see.

Hauser based his work on the Laffer curve. It's cited in his writing. Did you actually read Hauser (I did about 15 years ago or whenever it was he first wrote about this) or just the clip notes from fox news? Do YOU know anything from whence you speak.

The harsh realities are that Hauser's magical average is based on a range of total tax revenues from 14.4% to 20.9% of gdp since 1946. That's a really large range considering how big the gdp is compared to income tax revenues which are currently 6% of gdp. At the current 14.9% total tax revenue point you could DOUBLE the income tax revenues to 12% of gdp and still stay inside the range Hauser used to calculate his average. (14.9+6=20.9) Not the tax rate, the actual taxes collected (do you understand the difference by any chance?). If we could somehow (without a revolution) double the income tax revenues from 2 trillion to 4 trillion not only would the budget be balanced but we would have leftover funds to pay down the debt. Bonus points, we would magically stay within the range used to formulate Hauser's law. Amazing math don't you think? Do you understand any of this or should I type it again very slowly?

Here's a chart of revenue sources in case you think I'm making this up.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

Shrek--

You keep citing Hauser's law as being "proven". That is complete bullshit. All he did was observe that over a certain period in history, tax revenues varied within a large range. It is wholly invalid to extend his work to claim that any tax rates under any situation will follow the same trend. That is very basic logic.

It should have been called Hauser's observation.

shrekgrinch says

If Hauser’s Law proves that the feds can’t get more than 20% of GDP (in 2000, the largest grab of GDP from income tax revenue since the history of income taxation) yet we are spending more than 20% plus consistently now and in the foreseeable future, no amount of raising TAX RATES on the rich or anyone else will matter, because the absolute max of what we can get out of income tax revenues is pretty set.

Therefore, any notion of clinging to some belief that raising income tax rates on the rich will actually yield more revenue is illogical. Yet, that is what you all are doing.

You keep repeating this. Here I will try to make my point simpler.

This is one of the things you are missing. If tax revenues are alway 19.5% of GDP, then lowering taxes to zero would lower GDP down to zero (which actually makes sense we don't exist without any government)

Now let's raise taxes a little to zero on everyone, but .0001% on income over one billion dollars.
(silly, because the US doesn't exist yet with such low tax revenue)

But continue this, and eventually theoretical tax revenues get to where we exist, and yet the services and laws provided still aren't enough to support huge GDP.

So increase, and so on.

Even Hausers observation, that revenues of 19.5% of GDP are expected, implies that taxes can be too low. Okay, so you can't see it. That's fine.

shrekgrinch says

You are uneducated on this topic. Sorry, but that is yet another empirical observation that you can’t refute…in fact, you keep reinforcing that observation with more evidence as I keep pointing out.

Well, I have a masters degree in Math, which should make me qualified to make the observation that you never respond to good logical points that several have made here. You repeat the same erroneous bs.

Here again, maybe you will consider -

A: Raising marginal rates on high income does not cause increase in fed tax revenue

B: Hauser's observation that we should always expect tax revenue of 19.5% of GDP.

The only way that both A and B can simultaneously be true, is if raising tax rates could never happen concurrently with increasing GDP. And we know that (even as thought experiment - but also by history) can happen.

Also, the only way that both A and B can simultaneously be true is if raising marginal taxes on high incomes were somehow guaranteed to lower GDP. This is logically implied (without Laffer). This is impossible because then rates being too low would be impossible.

But the other argument people have made about Hauser's law being an average are also true.

Being educated is about being able to do critical thinking on your own, not regurgitating some have baked wishful rationalization of the wealthy who of course want low taxes.

I'll hand you this, you got me (trolling that is). I shouldn't have looked to see your response.

Gas prices have nothing to do with it. We all we be telecommuting.

I guess the point was to keeping uninsured people from being a burden to the system. I feel anyone should be able to go without medical coverage, but they need to understand if they need medical treatment they have to pay out of pocket. And if they can't afford to pay, then were going to drop you off on the curb of the hospital to die. There's WAY too many people that are uninsured and being a burden to the system. While thousand die every year cause they can't afford cancer treatments, hospitals never turn away a gun shot victim cause he don't have health insurance.

shrekgrinch says

Why don’t you just quit while you are behind. Enjoy your holidays.

Same to you.

shrekgrinch says

bob2356 says

If we could somehow (without a revolution) double the income tax revenues from 2 trillion to 4 trillion not only would the budget be balanced but we would have leftover funds to pay down the debt.

That is what has been proven to be impossible to do. That is Hauser’s point. We had tax rates as high as 91% and as low as 28% during that period. Yet the same range of revenues wasn’t broken…which is Hauser’s entire point and the one I keep repeating over and over again at least five times now.

To think otherwise is complete and total fantasy. Other sources of tax revenue need to be found. Consumption or wealth are the two biggest money pots worth considering, as far as taxes go.

bob2356 says

Bonus points, we would magically stay within the range used to formulate Hauser’s law. Amazing math don’t you think? Do you understand any of this or should I type it again very slowly?

Uh…look on your chart . That chart seems to break down what are all defacto income taxes into subcategories, which you confuse the terms used there when Hauser looked at the total collected by all taxes on income — as is clearly stated on the left column, where it says Total Receipts.

Are you being dense just to bust everyone's balls? Of course the chart breaks out taxes by subcatagories, that's the whole meat of Hauser's contention. He cites the TOP TAX RATE on INCOME TAXES as the basis for his theory. That is the only place the term TOP TAX RATE applies. NOT corporate taxes or Social security. What don't you understand about this? He says the total is within a range ( a damn big range with lots of slack) no matter what the top tax rate is. He totally ignores any tax rate changes other than the top tax rate on income taxes only.

Apparently YOU don't understand the difference between tax rates and tax collections. You keep citing the 91% tax RATE, but don't bother to find out what the actual rate PAID was at the time. Less than 50%. The current top tax bracket of 35% collects over 30%. IF you insist on lumping in SS then realize that SS has ramped up from 1% to 7.5% in that time so there is actually less than 15% difference between the actual collections of individual taxes at the highest TOP TAX RATE rate in history vs today's top rate. That's a 15% difference on 6% of the gdp. You do understand the significance of percentages of percentages don't you?

I don't see how corporate tax's is applicable in any way shape or form to Hauser's assertions about TOP TAX RATES but for some reason he lumps them into collections. Pretty shoddy methodology. But you seem to somehow think it's relevant. It's a mystery to me.

That is the whole problem with Hauser. He cites a tax rate without taking into account that the 91% tax rate in 1951 was totally different animal from the 39% tax rate in 1993. You could deduct almost everything against the 91% rate and people did. It applied only to the very wealthy where the 39% tax rate was much much broader. He totally ignores the rises in SS when he talks about the reduction in tax rates. If someone takes more money out of my left pocket and less out of my right pocket I still look at the total. Hauser doesn't.

Hauser's contention that tax collections work within a range is obvious and self evident. Of course they work within a range. If you take any period in history they will be within a range. It's his analysis of the relevance to the top tax rate that is useless. As is your contention that taxes could never break out of this range. They certainly could, but it is unlikely that they will. That's a political question, not an economic one. Collections are very near the bottom of the range right now and it is highly likely they will go up to the top of the range in the future. Plus some type of consumption tax on top of that. The US cannot borrow more and more money forever.

shrekgrinch says

And I really loved how you couldn’t tell which column of data on your own provided chart Hauser was looking at and then you proceeded on some rant about doubling 6% to 12% but staying within Hauser’s Law as a result.

You don't even remember who you are talking to.

shrekgrinch says

Also, I don’t respond to every boneheaded thing written on here…

just because you are under the false impression that it is ‘logical’ doesn’t mean that is so.

I can tell you think you are intelligent. And I can tell you make no effort EVER to understand what anyone else is saying. The fact that I respond to you, or unignore you to read your responses to me, is proof that I am indeed sometimes an idiot.

shrekgrinch says

just because you are under the false impression that it is ‘logical’ doesn’t mean that is so.

Exactly.

Add this to the list of what you misinterpret and or misunderstand.

A possible sequence of events:

Year one - Spending 21% of GDP, and marginal rates on high income (for future) raised

Year two - GDP goes up by 10%, govt spending held close to year one level, and higher tax rates still in effect

Spending is now 19% of GDP and tax revenues are WAY more than 10% higher than previous year.

Time to get indignant, challenge my reading comprehension, and make your other usual "logical" arguments. Oh wait, this is so stupid it doesn't even deserve a well thought out answer.

TechGromit says

I feel anyone should be able to go without medical coverage, but they need to understand if they need medical treatment they have to pay out of pocket. And if they can’t afford to pay, then were going to drop you off on the curb of the hospital to die.

Paying out of pocket right now for medical care is by far the cheapest way to go for over 90% of the population. i.e. that aren't falling over sick with festering boules.

But make no mistake my friend, if you get a catastrophic illness, or get stricken down mangled and maimed, even those with the BEST insurance. Will only be taken care of so far and so long, after that if you don't get back to work buddy. You're just a ward of the State, the very one you swore to turn those away that can't afford it.

Insurance is NOT your friend, it's a multi hundred Trillion dollar industry that wants nothing more out of you, than your premiums. And investment dollars will help too.

robertoaribas says

technical analysis is voodoo bull$hit, stamped as “thought” by the cnbc witchdoctors in suits..

A trend is your friend. till it isn’t…

Amen. How come we never see any back-testing of "technical analysis" on real data. I'd just loooove to see one of these chartist voodoo-makers extrapolate a few carefully selected anonymous historical charts and see the look on their face when they realize they really stepped in the $hit when it is revealed what actually happened.

Off-topic but I have a friend who is getting very well-known for his specialty which he dishes out from a food cart once or twice a week. His margins are low and the food is very labor intensive. He is barely scraping by. Not sure what motivates him though he did once say he hopes his culinary talents will eventually get him laid (no progress there, as far as I know).

In any event, he has not one, but two different affluent people who have expressed a serious desire to open a restaurant with him. If this ever comes to fruition I pity the investor as I know my friend well and find him to be quite lazy yet arrogant and, at the same time, very indecisive. The restaurant surely will fail.

I worked in restaurants for about 10 years. The ones that made it had great food and great managers. I believe someone already mentioned these factors as among the most important.