That post is inane and untrue. the DIFFERENCE which is HUGE is one sets of monies are lost at the private level, for which there are checks and balances, and the other is PUBLIC monies, which have no checks and balances. If you have been paying attention, u might realize that the govt.s interference in financial and real estate PRIVATE markets have gone greatly to creating this debacle. The PUBLIC's monies are now being funneled out not to create jobs, but to payoff cronies and donors and unions. About 12 cents of every dollar of this abortion of a stimulus will be applied to job creation. Of those 12 measly cents, most of the job creation will be for WHO?...?? why Government employees, where unemployment is about 2%. 2%!! ... I think that number should tell you, you've been had.All the money they're throwing out to try to fix it is just going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall losses which will probably happen anyway. It's worth a shot to try even if the chances it will actually help are slim. What it will do is save lives. (except a few stupid dead babies) (hehehe)
Tax breaks wouldn't help either, if anyone tries to suggest tax breaks as opposed to the current proposed stimulus.
CEO's will go into other positions away from the targeted firms and industries, just like the ebb and flow of tidal activity, the job market is always in flux. So when a WHIZBANG Business person is produced (BWIP!!), they will not go into those targeted positions.... they will be filled by "lesser" people.Jax, where are those CEO's going to go? If they flee their jobs, they won't get any unemployment and there certainly aren't any jobs that will pay even a percentage of what they've been making. Let them flee their jobs, let them sit around with no income wondering what went wrong. It'll be good for them.
Looking doomier and gloomier everyday, apparently the phone lines to capitol hill have been jammed for 2 weeks now, people are pissed off and they aren't afraid to say so.
Tax breaks wouldn't help either, if anyone tries to suggest tax breaks as opposed to the current proposed stimulus.
If ANY of the oil producers felt that there is only a decade of oil to make a profit it off of....they wouldn't be selling it at 40/per barrel.Taxes are the least of your worries, gentlemen! 60% of the electricity you use, 90% of the calories you consume, and more than 70% of Nitrogen used in Argiculture are only made possible by oil & petrochemicals!
Why is this a problem? Fools! Don't you see oil is running out quicker than anyone is willing to admit? According to publicly distributed figures from the International Energy Agency , our situation is dire! When oil was discovered as an energy resource, two trillion barrels of this substance was locked within the Earth, unfortunately even this massive supply is not enough to sustain the world's energy needs, because our usage has skyrocketed in the past several decades! During the year 2001, we reached the halfway point, 1 trillion barrels of oil had left the ground, but our usage for that year alone as a planet was 84 billion barrels! With 1 trillion barrels remaining in the planet, 84 billion barrels per year would result in recoverable oil for only 11.9 years! Oil demand and usage rises daily, so every year brings us closer and closer to inescapable doom!
Revolutionary measures are our only hope for survival!LifeAftertheOilCrash.net said:[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]An oil company's share value is dictated first and foremost not by the price of oil but by how much oil that company reports having in reserve. A company can't admit its reserves are now in decline or it risks seeing its share price drop relative to other companies who report more abundant reserves. In a May 2008 article entitled "Why Exxon Still Denies Peak Oil", financial analyst Jim Kingsdale explains this in more depth:
"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The production sharing agreements between the major oil companies and various countries where they produce oil mean that as the price of oil rises, the share of production going to the major oil company declines. Thus, in accordance with their contracts, the oil company’s production shows a decrease even though its revenues increase.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oil companies don’t like this because Wall Street analysts, in their wisdom, become discouraged by declining production. It causes the analysts to downgrade the stocks, which causes the stock prices to fall. Executives get a lot of their compensation (often most of their compensation) via stock options that are issued every year and sold every year by the executives when the stock price rises. So falling production levels caused by higher oil prices causes the executives’ compensation to fall. Ouch. That’s real money.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Executives, especially Exxon executives, have thought for some time that they could keep oil prices under control by pretending that Peak Oil is a left-wing myth. Or that it won’t happen until we’re all dead. Most executives (other than Exxon’s) have stopped that foolishness by now.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yesterday, Exxon reported a "plunge" in oil production - in the words of The Financial Times. Revenues and cash flow, mind you, were pretty damn good. But the stock was downgraded by analysts because their oil production declined and the stock price was down by more than $3. Q.E.D." [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Big Oil companies are thus motivated to over - not under - report how much oil they have in reserve. This fact, unfortunately, is lost on several commentators such as film-maker Alex Jones, talk-show host George Noory, and minister Lindsay Williams who insist "Peak Oil is a scam by the oil companies to artificially raise prices." [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source #1[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source #2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If these individuals' claims that "peak oil is just oil company propaganda to promote artificial scarcity" were true, then oil companies such as Exxon would not still be denying Peak Oil.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Companies such as Exxon have denied Peak Oil because they wanted to convey an atmosphere of abundance as this is conducive both to getting the public to keep on buying and to attracting investors. If people knew the truth, they would likely begin drastically curtailing their consumption of oil, which would drive the price down. Investors would likely take action similar to those taken by famed Texas multi-billionaire Richard Rainwater who pulled $500 million out of the financial markets after learning about Peak Oil. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Other consumers and investors are unlikely to take similarly drastic actions so long as they perceive the current price spikes as just "more of the same old-same old" and are confident about the future. [/FONT]
Wow, that's even less than I pay in taxes in a month, you got shafted Miss.My mom died when I was 17, I got 2 months social security and then was on my own. She paid in her whole life, and the government basically stole her money. The money they paid out was less than a thousand dollars. She most likely paid that in during 6 months time.
I was 18 years old, with no home and no job. I couldn't get a student loan because the government required me to show my fathers income and he didn't care if I lived or died. I was left pretty much screwed. I learned at a young age to hate the goverment and that hate has blossomed over the last 23 years.
How would someone opt out of paying social security? How's that possible?Only the Govt. is allowed to run a Ponzi scheme (social security).
Look, I can help anyone out if they are under 35 here.
1.) Dump out of Social security (you can) The net return on your SS paymants is 2%.
2.) Apply that money you would have sent the Govt. to something simple like the Dow index, which has returned an average of 7%/per year since 1950.
3.) You have now increased your return by 250% and it cost you absolutely nothing extra.
I can get a bit deeper into it, but this is an extremely easy solution for laymen.
out.
Always thinking about yourself aren't you Med Man.... How enlightened of you.Social security has treated me well. I already have recieved more than I paid in. I'll be long dead before SS runs out of loot, so I am well satisfied with my return. Those younger than 35 may well find a better deal, but uncertainty in the financial markets as we have just witnessed may be a sobering view of that path. I'm glad that I have lived through both the worst of times and the best of times. I don't see good times for the proletariat in any future scenario. There will be good times for the rich and the elites, but the workers are screwed.