The maker of the LOL is a moron and a jackass.

All this posturing is meaningless in light of the big picture. Jeez.

Re: #3, WeaselMan is referring to how on the Tonight Show, Obama made fun of how badly he bowled by comparing himself to people who compete in the Special Olympics.

It was funny — it’s okay to laugh.

Even if we raised taxes on the rich to 90%, we wouldn’t see this paid off in our lifetime.

FTW, thread over

Don’t understand why I have to give up things that I have worked really hard for just so that someone that isn’t working hard get to have the same stuff that I do. Let them work for it.

And if you don’t like how the company is being run then you are free to leave and find a new job.

I hate to hear people complain about something within their control and then they don’t do any thing about it.

THAT is why the bootstraps don’t “work” anymore. That is why even Greenspan said free markets have a flaw. That and only that. We’re living THAT dream right now. Hope it fulfills all you

THAT is why the bootstraps don’t “work” anymore. That is why even Greenspan said free markets have a flaw. That and only that. We’re living THAT dream right now. Hope it fulfills all your fantasies ’cause you’re only getting more of the same.

This whole issue isn’t academic for me. I am living at that economic level but I am not bankrupt nor are the people around me. We pay our bills and live check to check because that is how the cookie crumbled.

You are saying that all the poor and middle class simply tossed it into the bank to be stored and I am saying that it partly right. However, I am also saying that a fair amount of it was spent to get some debts caught up and some enjoyment as living check to check doesn’t quite lend itself to much in the way of excess spending.

So I honestly don’t know what to tell you. What I have seen does not fit into the neat paradigm that you are detailing from the book you are claiming to be able to cite.

As you said, we’re done. You are repeating the same thing over and over which is making me repeat the same thing ad nauseum, which does nothing for either of us.

Go forth and claim your victory over strawmen (yours or otherwise,) elitism, and whatever else strikes your fancy.

No, we’re still not agreeing, but I think we’re done, if your argument is going to continue to be “you don’t understand human nature”. Again, the behavior in the presence of risk I’m talking about is all pretty well established stuff. (I wish I had some cites for you, but the best explanation I’ve seen recently is in the first few chapters of “The Science of Fear”, by Dan Gardner. Unfortunately I only have the Kindle version with me so I can’t easily pull out references for you.) What are you basing yours on? (Obviously I’m not asking you for more detailed citations than what I’m providing, just a general direction.)

And you are still not factoring in the basics of human nature or you aren’t reading all of what I am saying.

Some of it is squirreled away, I certain did so. However, a fair amount of it was used to catch up on some long term debt and some was used to actually do something besides the usual routine.

So I think we are starting to agree in circles at this point as I am saying that a majority of the money goes right back out within a relatively short period of time while a small amount is squirreled away.

@ubr: I have no issue with debating and he is only being mildly caustic so I think I’ll manage.

If the money has to come “right back out” for expenses, that suggests that the expenses aren’t unforeseen and/or catastrophic, but are regular, or at least predictable. (Otherwise, wouldn’t they be more randomly distributed?) So, if these folks can’t meet their regular obligations, that means they’re either already bankrupt, or are going to be shortly, stimulus or no. And that seems like a contraction, because by that logic, everyone who’s poor would be, by default, going bankrupt.

You’re underestimating how innately and irrationally risk-averse people are. (This has been pretty well established over the last 20 or 30 years or so.) When everything looks rosy and some extra cash comes in — yes, spending spree, no argument there. But on the other half of the business cycle, things look scarier, perceived risk goes up, and that spending spree disappears. For both the stimulus and the last round of refunds, that’s precisely what happened. The personal savings rate and the amount of liquid funds on deposit went up through both.

Put it this way — the economy’s going to hell, your job is (probably) less secure, your investments have (probably) lost money. You don’t have enough cash saved. (That’s not a value judgment — you said you needed to catch up on your bills.) If that’s all true, did you really blow that cash like you would have in years past?

“Yes, in most establishments, one cannot simply slap a Treasury check on the counter and walk out with double cheeseburgers and/or bottles of bourbon, and yes, individuals usually use personal checking accounts to facilitate this transaction. However, as I assumed was clear from context, it wasn’t this type of transaction I was referring to; instead, I meant that individuals were depositing the check with the intent of keeping it in reserve rather than spending it right away.”

That is you stating that I was talking about the simple fact of life that people must cash their checks to use them.

“Pretty much everybody dumped it into their bank accounts but when the middle class and poor get money, it tends to go right back out for services as it is harder for them to accumulate funds due to rate of pay vs expenses required.”

That was what I said, while it can be assumed that I am being snide, it is false. I am simply stating that the savings don’t last as long as you think simply because there are other expenses that require that money to come right back out.

So if you are going to attack me, at least don’t make up an argument to rebel against.

2. I realize that you are saying that people will squirrel away money but I am stating that while they try and manage to save some of it, all of it isn’t retained and thus used for what they have to use it on.

Or they will do something else very basic to human beings, they will spend it on some luxury that they couldn’t afford with their normal stream of income. Such as a bigger TV, video game system, bigger grill, etc.

You talk about human nature yet only accept one facet of it in your argument. You talk about sensibility and how people lack it to pay down their debts so they stash it but you miss the equally realistic occurence: the poor spending the excess money to enjoy themselves as they realize they won’t have that sum of money for a while.

Pretty much like the minor explosion of spending that occurs with tax rebates, I know that myself and a number of other people take that moment to get that next gen system, some games, and other luxuries while using the rest of it to get caught up on bills and the like.

So yes, I agree that your point is valid but only acknowledging one side of the human condition. When given a surplus, people in my income level are prone to catching up on bills, getting some luxuries, and squirreling away the rest.

Now that we’re back on topic — I’m arguing that a lot of folks made a good-faith effort to keep the stimulus money in the bank, or at least used it as the beginnings of an emergency fund.

While I agree that generally, the poorer you are, the harder it is to save, I feel that poorer households are generally balanced in the medium term, i.e. living paycheck to paycheck. (Which is not to say that they aren’t in debt, just that they can afford to service the debt.) So I don’t see how you think that cash coming in must immediately go back out. That would seem to imply that being poor automatically leads to bankruptcy, but how can every poor family not be meeting their basic bills?

Unless you’re suggesting that an otherwise cash-neutral family would, if given the choice, use stimulus cash to pay down debt versus establishing an emergency fund. While, assuming low volatility in your upcoming expenses, paying down debt may be the rational move, people aren’t rational, and psychologically, I think people are naturally inclined to hold onto the cash to guard against future risk than pay down the debt and accumulate the savings over time.

Now, I realize that you are projecting an inability to comprehend but I figured I would try to get this point across again.

I wasn’t talking about cashing checks, I was talking about how little of it actually remained in their accounts after a relatively short period of time.

So why exactly did you decide to attack a strawman instead of address my point?

Yes, in most establishments, one cannot simply slap a Treasury check on the counter and walk out with double cheeseburgers and/or bottles of bourbon, and yes, individuals usually use personal checking accounts to facilitate this transaction. However, as I assumed was clear from context, it wasn’t this type of transaction I was referring to; instead, I meant that individuals were depositing the check with the intent of keeping it in reserve rather than spending it right away.

I neglected to consider that you would ignore all context and common sense in order to make your point. I apologize for this miscommunication, and I’ll attempt to make my posts clearer in the future in hopes of keeping this kind of tragedy from happening again.

Pretty much everybody dumped it into their bank accounts but when the middle class and poor get money, it tends to go right back out for services as it is harder for them to accumulate funds due to rate of pay vs expenses required.

So you’re right but it still doesn’t invalidate her point in any way…

FISCAL YEAR – This is an accounting year, i.e. when the books for the year are opened and closed. It can coorespond to the calander year or be say, July 1 to June 30, as many governments have it.

The accounting period for which annual financial statements are regularly prepared, generally a period of 12 months, 52 weeks, or 53 weeks.

Financial operations of the federal government are carried out in a 12-month fiscal year, beginning on Oct. 1 and ending on Sept. 30. The fiscal year carries the date of the calendar year in which it ends. (From fiscal year 1844 to fiscal year 1976, the fiscal year began July 1 and ended the following June 30.)

No response — what a shocker. But what will truly surprise me, Froo, is if you don’t repeat the same baseless accusation in the near future and pretend that this thread never happened.

I’ve taught them all valuable work skills that nobody can take away from them. I didn’t do this out of the kindness of my heart, I did it so I could prosper. But as I do well, so do they.

MANY of my clients are also small businesses, who just like me employ other people. Most new jobs are created by small businesses.

I know for a fact that one of my clients who is starting a new venture would be able to increase my workload which in turn would allow me to pay my employees more if she didn’t have to pay so much in taxes.

It’s also naive to think that businesses actually PAY taxes. (This doesn’t contradict my previous point, lower taxes mean more cash on hand to invest AND lower prices) Corporations simply collect taxes and pass the cost of the taxes along to their customers in higher prices. If the tax burden becomes so costly that they can’t make a profit because of out-of-country competition having an unfair price advantage they go out of business. And then people lose jobs.

Ask yourself this – has a poor person ever hired you?