Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

Top 351. Jul 11, 2005 1:55 PM

» bbaddict - Re: Re: pete peterson

Don't make the common mistake of confusing dollars with percentages. That is one of the tricks people use to skew statistics to their own side.

When you give an x% tax cut to everyone, it is fair, and even across the board. But the rich get more DOLLARS benefit for the same percentage.

The tax cut was actually highest in percentages to the lower class (many no longer pay ANY taxes). But in dollars, those who pay the most get the most savings in dollars.

Those who proscribe giving everyone the same DOLLAR benefit are [...] fill in Marxist analogy here

One of the tricks the left uses to ratchet up taxation on the rich, and redistribute wealth, is to raise taxes in percentages and cut taxes in dollars. The rich end up carrying everyone else's water. To say the rich don't pay their fair share or deserve a tax cut is ridiculous.

In a FAIR society, wouldn't every citizen pay the same in DOLLARS?

Why should I pay 10x more taxes than my neighbor? Same house, same number of kids. He works for the government, and I work my @rse off.

-- posted by bbaddict

Top 352. Jul 11, 2005 3:30 PM

» JeffChristy - Re: Re: Re: pete peterson

In response to Re: Re: pete peterson posted by bbaddict:

Those who benefited the most from the Bush tax cut, on a percentage basis, were middle class retired people who derive a large amount of their income from stock dividends or long-term capital gains. The tax rate on the first $29,000 on this type of income is only 5%. I have a parent whose adjusted gross income is a median five figure number. Their tax return for 2004 showed a 40% reduction in tax due compared to the 2002 return. 2004 had a few thousand dollars more in income and both returns used the standard deduction. I am skeptical of the huge saving people are claiming "the rich" received. They may have if their tax liability was determined by the tax rates but I have talked to several people (doctors etc) with incomes of several hundred thousand dollars and everyone of them said their taxes last year were determined by the alternative minimum tax. If you don't believe me just ask someone you know in this income class if the were effected by the AMT. But watch out. I ask that question to a friend of mine and he said don't even bring that up.

-- posted by JeffChristy

Top 353. Jul 11, 2005 4:27 PM

» freeye2 - Re: what radio station archive bob brinkers radio show?

kirk: i'm new here on this site and this topic, but did you say the below thought? or could you direct me to who did? or where i may find such information?

"His audience is not that sophisticated or they
would all know you can get this for free at
radio stations that archive each hour of
programming."

i'm looking for a radio station that archives the bob brinker money talk radio show.

thanks freeye2

-- posted by freeye2

Top 354. Jul 11, 2005 6:05 PM

» JeffChristy - Re: Re: what radio station archive bob brinkers radio show?

In response to Re: what radio station archive bob brinkers radio show? posted by freeye2:

freeye2

Try the KGO archives. I think yesterdays show is only available until 12 midnight. Here is the link.

KGO-AM 810 NewsTalk
:http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?PT=A...

-- posted by JeffChristy

Top 355. Jul 11, 2005 6:49 PM

» JIMMY62 - Re: I luckily didn't follow his short time QQQ; and market dire

In response to I luckily didn't follow his short time QQQ; and market directio posted by jamesj24:

Somehow I knew about the 1160 buy recommendation. I learend of it here on suite 101. I even put a few more dollars in the market during thee first week of May as the market was at or near 1160, I don't recall with precision.

As for the dip just before the start of this war in Iraq, that was consistently predicted here. Largely becuse Bob had missed the MOABO bottom in early October, and some here were sure he would jump in on the first dip after that, which he did.

copy right or wrong, Bob's method of enforcing is to cancel subscriptions of those he can identify who are doing what you suggested. Now if I thought a subscription to THE MARKETIMER was worth $185 per year, why would I care to risk anything to tell others in a public forum something that would cause that subscription to be cancelled?

BTW, it is just 6 months until the next off-presidential election year starts. Going out on a limb, I predict that Bob will identify a GIFT HORSE during 2006. However, I doubt that he will issue a sell signal before that there GFT HORSE,

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 356. Jul 11, 2005 6:53 PM

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Re: pete peterson

In response to Re: Re: pete peterson posted by Moe_Berg:

The tax cuts expire becasue there were not enough votes to make them longer. Some budget rule mumbo-jumbo required the tax cuts to vanish after ten years. If not opponents could have fillibustered them away.

Bob was almost consistentlyu for the tax cuts. He also called for budget cuts to get toward balance.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 357. Jul 11, 2005 7:00 PM

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Re: pete peterson

In response to Re: Re: pete peterson posted by bbaddict:

Mathematically correct.

That analysis reminds me of Bob saying on Saturday that the high oil prices are a good deal as they are keeping the economy from growing too fast.

Which reminds me of Bob saying that higher SSI income limits would greatly harm the economy, maybe even cause Bob to quit his millions of dollars per year scam.

The tax custs are fine, just step up and make the budget cuts needed to control the national debt or risk looking like Alfred E. Newman.

Halliburton works for the government.
So does W and Dick and Rove.

I am just amazed that Bob would have someone like Peterson on THE PROGRAM. Someone who in just about every paragraph contradicts the kinds of things that Bob rants about. The guests are a great improvement over more calls about moprtgage rates.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 358. Jul 11, 2005 11:17 PM

» permabear - Re: Re: Re: Re: pete peterson

In response to Re: Re: Re: pete peterson posted by JIMMY62:

"The tax cuts expire becasue there were not enough votes to make them longer. Some budget rule mumbo-jumbo required the tax cuts to vanish after ten years. If not opponents could have fillibustered them away"

The budet rule mumbo-jumbo as you call it were the numbers. The reason that the tax cuts weren't made permanent from the beginning is because the numbers showed such huge deficits that they couldn't use them without creating havoc even within GOP ranks. As things have played out, the fears of the deficit hawks have more been proven true. Budget deficits have exploded. While we see a temporary decline in the deficits, when projections are made going forward, deficits start exploding again as we approach 2010. If the tax cuts are made permanent, the deficits go completely bonkers, especially as the baby boomers retire and start drawing on their Social Security and Medicare benefits. As for the rich, the disparity between rich and poor has never been larger in U.S. history. The middle class is being squeezed by higher healthcare costs and limited income gains. If the GOP keeps going as they are, this country will develop into another latin American economy with a smallish rich class, a shrinking middle class and an exploding poor class.

-- posted by permabear

Top 359. Jul 12, 2005 5:38 AM

» JIMMY62 - pete peterson

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: pete peterson posted by permabear:

I surmize that you agree that Pete Peterson has more of substance to say than Bob.

Bob should Be commended for juicing up THE PROGRAM.

As for the rich, the disparity between rich and poor has never been larger in U.S. history. I suggest two years when the disparity was greater: 1776 and 1860. It is the deficits, not the disparity.

-- posted by JIMMY62