Market crash: are we there yet ?

[camaraderie]

We've known for some years now that without changes SS is going to go under. (Same for medicare and the PensionBenefits Guaranty).
So...what can be done?
1. Raise SS taxes on everyone now.
2. Tax all income for ss ...eliminate the cut-off for high income earners.
3. Reduce benefits or push back the age they start.
4. Eliminate benefits for those who retire with high retirement income.
5. Raise taxes only when needed to cover annual costs (i.e. let the kids pay)

...or some combination of the above. Now try to pass any of that stuff except #5 and the full fury of the AARP will be unleashed.

[Rickm505]

Hey, I'm a member of AARP and of course this will be fought and a compromise reached. Something does have to be done.

The point made earlier is that Bush has increased our National debt by 250% in 6 years. Even the GAO is screaming 'uncle'. The Bush response is to gut Social Security which was the aim from the day they took office.

Presidents Reagan and Bush together have accounted for 75% of our entire national debt. Partly by cutting taxes on the rich. Now let's reverse that and tax the hell out of anyone making more than 250K per year.

[camaraderie]

Rick...despite the continuous stream of leftist propaganda impugning Bush's motives, the oil bill has always been about:
1. Ensuring a FAIR share of IRAQ oil revenues go to all Iraqis providing a bonding force for society there rather than a divisive money grab for Shiites at the expense of Sunni's and Kurds. If all ethnic/sects get a stake in what is found under only part of the country, then they all have a stake in making the country work.
2. Getting oil production back up and running at pre-war levels or better. Iraq cannot suceed as a country without oil funding its' needs. Getting the oil out of the ground there is an expensive and hi risk proposition and it must be done by FOREIGN companies as there is no internal capability. To suggest that companies would do this under the same terms as in a stable environment is illusory as is the idea of lending billions of dollars to a country that has no income to speak of.

In any event...the Iraqi government and special interest groups seem incapable of making these decisions and they are critical to its future stability AND to our ability to leave. Hence the strong US pressure for the Iraquis to make a deal to share the wealth among all its citizens.

[limber]

I'm thinking about owning my first cruising sailboat (Used) around 40-50'.
How does the current economic situation in the US effect boat prices and where is the best place to look for one in the US.

Appreciate your opinions

[camaraderie]

Prices are depressed and boats are sitting...+ the pound is high vs. the dollar so I'd grab a cheap flight to Miami and check out the boats there and in Ft. Lauderdale.
If you want boats in a bit better condition over all but higher prices and fewer choices then Annapolis Md. and Newport RI are the two other East Coast hot spots.
Best thing to do is search YachtWorld for each of these areas and look at the boat available...then visit the place that looks most promising to you.

[Rickm505]

It looks like boat sales do track the real estate market here in the USA. As Cam mentioned there are deals to be had on this side of the pond. If you're still interested in Cats, I would take a look at 2hulls.com in South Florida.

[Rickm505]

Cam


Now you are telling me that Alan Greenspan, a staunch republican is leftist? Even he's telling the world "...it's about the oil...stupid..."

[camaraderie]

C'mon Rick...read his retraction/clarification of that statement...it is HIS view that we HAD to take out Saddam to secure WORLD oil supplies from the threat he posed to them. He does not assign that motive to BUSH and in any event it is far different to go to war to SECURE strategic materials from an imminent threat than to go to war to GAIN $$ through the takeover of another country's resources. Here's his interview:

NYTimes:

Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields. “I supported taking out Saddam, because he was moving inexorably toward taking the world’s oil resources,” he said. “Iraq was a far greater threat than Iran to the world scene.”

The Post’s Bob Woodward picks up on Greenspan’s statement about the Iraq War being “largely about oil” and asks him about it.

In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. “I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein’s ouster, either through war or covert action. “I wasn’t arguing for war per se,” he said. But “to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B” — an alternative to war.

[hellosailor]

Cam-
Seen Syriana? Speaking of oil manipulations, politics, and reality.

Or how's that Who song go? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

I hear Hillary pitched national health again on all 5 Sunday tv talk shows on the same day. Guess this leaves me....what about 15-16 months to find some other country to move to?

Or maybe I could convince her that she'll be elected President For Life and Second Savior of the World if she flies into Waziristan real real fast to sit down to dinner with Osama. (I like that one better, I don't feel like letting some carpetbagging you know what call my travel plans.)

[sailaway21]

Rick's tax plan, raising taxes on anyone making over $250,000, has one flaw in it. If you raise those people's taxes to say a confiscatory level of 100% you have revenue amounting to that necessary to run the federal government for approximately two weeks.

Rick also seems to have forgotten, or never known, that during the Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush administrations where tax cuts were made, tax receipts went up. Taxes on the rich were cut and government revenue went up; how could the deficit grow? Government spending went up faster than the increased revenues collected.

Alan Greenspan is not a staunch Republican, he is, if anything, a liberal Republican.

Another week gone by and we're closer to my prediction of a 15,000 market than we are to Rick's calamity's. Rick's voluminous memory apparently does not include recollection of the 1980's luxury tax that put numerous boat builders and small plane manufacturers out of business. They must have been "the rich". Of course, they kept their money being more fortunate than their employees who suddenly found there was no need for shipwirghts.

Rick's grasp of economics can only be considered floridian in quantity. Similar theories, of Canadian origin, can be observed in Michigan's governor. As a former Canadian it is unclear the extent to which she has been exposed to Florida groundwater, but she surely has a strain of the virus. With unemployment running the last three years at upwards of 7% in the state of Michigan, the governess desires to raise taxes. The second largest auto manufacturer in the world's employees went on strike today, further clouding the picture for recovery in '08. Not since FDR has anyone thought the solution to recession involved getting more money into government hands. Well, anyone but Jenny Granholm and Rick.