Hot Ladies Talking Money with Bald Dudes
Too funny, too apropos: Very Mad Money
Wednesday, February 06, 2008 | 04:30 AM | Permalink
| Comments (38)
| TrackBack (1)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e5502c699b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hot Ladies Talking Money with Bald Dudes:
» Hot Ladies Talk Money With Bald Dudes from DealBreaker.com
Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz.... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 6, 2008 2:36:06 PM
Comments
Thats pete he's making fun of!
Posted by: kd | Feb 6, 2008 5:26:44 AM
Good morning! Some great points, but the DEMS controlling congress and the white will be interesting - will they sneak up real close to the Republican Economic Platform, like Bill Clinton did? Hope not, the system does have to get cleaned out, and that might mean terrible policy - OUCH!
Posted by: Justin | Feb 6, 2008 5:29:32 AM
Folks, do you really believe that the certain guarantee that capital gains and dividend tax rates will rise significantly under Dem rule have little or no effect on the market?
Also, does anyone think that Clinton or Obama will spend LESS than Bush has spent?
Finally, do we believe that higher taxes on the working/middle class while a country is in recession is the right medicine for the economy?
I am interested in everyones opinion on this. Because, if your answers are Yes to the above, I've got a couple sub-prime mortgages I would like to sell you for 100 cents on the dollar....
Don't let your hatred of a single man (wait, two men - let me through Darth Vader in here as well) cloud your judgment on how bad the economy would be after the Dem medicine is given.
Posted by: Jdog33 | Feb 6, 2008 5:51:05 AM
Justin,
"will they sneak up real close to the Republican Economic Platform, like Bill Clinton did?
I doubt the Republicans considered raising income taxes on the Rich & Corporate, paying down the Reagan/Bush federal debt, turning federal budget deficits into federal budget surpluses, increasing the Federal Minimum Wage and increasing the EITC to lift millions out of Poverty, and extending Unemployment benefits for jobless workers, as "the Republican Economic Platform".
.
Posted by: VJ | Feb 6, 2008 5:55:10 AM
VJ, your right they wouldn't have raised the minimum wage, but if I remember correctly Clinton raised taxes on Corporations (to appease his constituency) and then lowered them a short year and a half later? Very smart move by him and Rubin indeed. But like the Republicans they did go all out to support global "free" trade. Which I would argue has been the defining issue (not getting much mention at the moment), of U.S. Economic Policy for the last 20+ years.
Different topic:
Hey, did you realize that the ISM Nonmanufaturing Index was revised, which supposedly, has made it less volatile - Imagin how much further below 44.6 it might have been yesterday? But the Pundits keep telling us that we are going to have a "mild recession - some even suggest " that we will skirt a recession. Yep, I believe Em! lol
Posted by: Justin | Feb 6, 2008 6:20:02 AM
Love the hot babes/bald dudes jewel. The rest of it is stupid.
Posted by: catfixer | Feb 6, 2008 7:40:44 AM
@ BR,
One can derive at least 2 indicators from TBP blog. One is the number of hits per day which is YOUR prerogative to interpret for your trading. The other one is the number of words in your posts and time lag between posts, which are OUR prerogative to use. How so?
When we only get a couple of posts with few words before the opening, and the time lag between posts increases, we know you are crunching numbers and that something is up, or down...
PPT should make a note of it.
Posted by: Steelduck | Feb 6, 2008 7:41:14 AM
The Cavuto/USA graphic was classic...what a baby-faced moron.
Posted by: dukeb | Feb 6, 2008 8:11:33 AM
You can definitely tell that Jon doesn't have his writers.
Posted by: Walker | Feb 6, 2008 8:19:15 AM
It looks like folks are figuring out that the old supply side mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves really is a lie.
It's about time.
Posted by: Bill in Carolina | Feb 6, 2008 8:27:46 AM
"...how bad the economy would be after the Dem medicine is given."
Yep, heaven forbid we should have a repeat of the dismal performance the economy had under the last Dem president. We wouldn't want to interrupt the awesome record of the Bush administration in economic and fiscal matters now, would we?
Posted by: bluestatedon | Feb 6, 2008 8:36:45 AM
"does anyone think that Clinton or Obama will spend LESS than Bush has spent?"
No. Every president spends more than the previous one. That's natural. It's the rate of increase that matters. And under Bill Clinton spending increased significantly slower than under Bush Jr or Bush Sr. Go look at the data.
Posted by: grace | Feb 6, 2008 9:12:13 AM
Hopefully I wont have to watch my taxes getting flushed down a hole in Iraq anymore.
Posted by: cathompson | Feb 6, 2008 9:23:09 AM
It is now clear why the hot lady at the grocery store talked to me this weekend about the price of apples. - my receding hairline.
Posted by: JT | Feb 6, 2008 9:49:52 AM
I just wish I was bald, so the hot ladies would talk to me.
Posted by: Don | Feb 6, 2008 10:01:04 AM
Clinton economy was built on the back of 2 things:
1) Dot.com bubble which created "imaginary and temporary" IT jobs which once these imaginary companies went under, vanished.
2) Decreased capital gains taxes pushed by the Republican controlled Congress.
I can promise you, if I have gains and they will be taxed at 35%, I will not sell my positions out. Even at 15%, it is painful.
BTW, Bush's budget deficit, while spending all the money on the Iraq war, is pretty amazing. I can't imagine what our deficit will be under Billary....
Posted by: Jdamon | Feb 6, 2008 10:38:42 AM
It's both funny and lamentable that some people suggest ("ask") whether the possibility of Dem victories is tanking the market.
As though it's not the GOP-spiked economy imploding in on itself, marked by higher inflation in necessities, decreased real income&spending per capita, record writeoffs (from all the fake profits), diminishing labor participation, and negative bank reserves.
Posted by: wunsacon | Feb 6, 2008 10:48:17 AM
Best graphic yesterday was on Fast Money (yes I know I actually had the TV on CNBC) and it was after some cheer-leading interview with Iger (Disney results( and after it was done the following graphic appeared across half of the screen:
"Disney may save markets tomorrow"
The channel was quickly changed once the teaser for the next show appeared:
Kudlow with Ben Stein.....
God bless Ben Stein for without him we would have no one to sell puts to.
Wunasocn-
totally agree, saw that excuse used many times yesterday.
Posted by: michael schumacher | Feb 6, 2008 10:58:20 AM
@Jdog33:
"do you really believe that the certain guarantee that capital gains and dividend tax rates will rise significantly under Dem rule have little or no effect on the market?"
Go read Warren Buffet on taxes versus inflation and their respective effects on the market? Simply put, the idea that taxes are detrimental to markets is a bogeyman not supported by common sense nor by solid data. BTW, anyone who make investment decisions based on taxes does not understand investment in the first place.
"Also, does anyone think that Clinton or Obama will spend LESS than Bush has spent?"
You are such a lucky guy: you can reduce complex stuff to a more vs. less equation. Some of us don't have this luxury. Should more be spent on bridges and infrastructure inspections? Where are the priorities today? Which spending by the federal government could benefit the common good (as opposed to special interest groups) now and for the years to come? No spending? A reduction? If so where? Should the no-bid contracts to the military contracting firms be cut? Expanded? Stay the same? What about health care? Is there a need?
Had enough? Is your head about to explode? Is the stress of considering these questions so painful that you MUST revert to a belief system that will explain everything, anything and the Universe too in two sentences? ("Republicans good! Democrats bad! Wooloo-Wooloo-Boom-Boom! Hugh!)
"Finally, do we believe that higher taxes on the working/middle class while a country is in recession is the right medicine for the economy?"
Says who? Why do you assume any tax increase would be on the middle class? Why not on those who haven't paid their median share in a long time for a change?
While we're at it, WHY THE F*(&* SHOULD THERE BE ANY TAX INCREASE TO BEGIN WITH?? Ever considered that closing loopholes could do wonders to enhance the fairness of the tax system? Or maybe closing loopholes is = to tax increase?
Magister Dixit!
Posted by: Francois | Feb 6, 2008 11:23:53 AM
Yes, I'm sorry but more spending is GOOD if it is spent on infrastructure and other programs that give long term returns.
Would America be in better or worse shape if the govt overhauled the rail system and made passenger rail a viable alternative to air travel? Would America be better or worse if we rebuilt the levy system in New Orleans and started a program of reclaiming the wetlands in the South? Do strong bridges and good roadway systems pay for themselves or not? Let's not even start with education.
Tax cuts are great, they really are (they've done very well by me in the last 5 years), but we simply have to pay for the things we want as a society. There is a huge difference in my income tax going towards a new rail system and a hopeless war in Iraq. A big, hairy difference in long term ROI and chances for success.
I would love to pay more taxes if it was to pay for the things that are NEEDED in America.
Posted by: zot23 | Feb 6, 2008 11:46:57 AM
haha, hearing people complain about 35% tax rates on capital gains! Hey, I work my ass each day and have to pay 35% AT LEAST of my money to taxes.
Capital Gains should be taxed more, and progressively.
Let the rich fry!
Posted by: pacified | Feb 6, 2008 12:58:31 PM
"Clinton economy was built on the back of 2 things"
Fine. But we were talking expenditures. And expenditures grew more slowly under Clinton than under both Bush's. Tax and spend my ass.
Posted by: grace | Feb 6, 2008 2:10:24 PM
I read the comments about how Democrats are to blame for the economy and I tried to let it go - did some laundry, made some bread, took the kids sledding, but I'm still irritated. So I'm writing a little rant.
I am fed up with the inability of Republicans to take ownership or to solve problems that they create or problems that happen on their watch. I could say more, but I'm really trying to hold back.
Republicans, Democrats, blah, blah, blah... I just want the politicians and policy folks to look at what worked and what didn't and forget all the ideology.
I'm also tired of the baby boomers who cannot stop themselves from telling everyone ELSE how to live their lives - the "right way", the "ideology" that works - the way of life that works... Can't wait till the Next Gen politicians get into office and more positions of power.
Signed,
Tired of the same old tired and ineffective political dogma, tired of the "know it all" baby-boomers and tired of the same old Fox News.
Posted by: Dianna | Feb 6, 2008 2:19:46 PM
"Also, does anyone think that Clinton or Obama will spend LESS than Bush has spent?"
Obama might. He's the most likely to get our troops out of Iraq, which could be a huge savings.
Of course, the next prez has to replace an enormous amount of military equipment that we've consumed. Bush has ignored that little mess to make his books look a little better, but be prepared to make up hundreds of billions to rebuild the military.
And does anybody think that McCain, Romney, or Huckabee will spend LESS than Bush has spent?
Posted by: LFC | Feb 6, 2008 2:32:06 PM
Justin,
"VJ, your right they wouldn't have raised the minimum wage..."
Along with the long list of other public policy differences I mentioned.
"but if I remember correctly Clinton raised taxes on Corporations (to appease his constituency..."
No, income tax rates were raised on corporations and the wealthy because they were not paying their fair share of the tax burden.
"...and then lowered them a short year and a half later?"
Nope.
Your memory is failing you.
"But like the Republicans they did go all out to support global 'free' trade."
Nope.
The Clinton administration supported NAFTA, which as the acronym presents, was about North American trade, not "global 'free' trade", and was a smashing success for both Canada and the U.S.
.
Posted by: VJ | Feb 6, 2008 3:00:45 PM
