Yeah sure, I’m no economist, so the other day when I said “fuck inflation” in response to the Federal Reserve’s refusal to cut interest rates in the face of a looming credit crunch that threatened to suck the broader economy down the sub-prime toilet, many readers appeared more offended by my economic heresy than my foul language.
Well… fuck you:
Fed seeks to calm markets with a flood of cash
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve, trying to calm turmoil on Wall Street, announced today that it will pump as much money as needed into the U.S. financial system to help overcome the ill effects of a spreading credit crunch.
The Fed, in a short statement, said it will provide “reserves as necessary” to help the markets safely make their way. The central bank did not provide details but said it would do all it can to “facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets.”
The Fed pushed $35 billion in temporary reserves into the system today morning, on top of a similar move the day before.
Hey… flooding the the financial system with cash… isn’t that supposed to be inflationary? You know, just like cutting interest rates?
I’m not suggesting an interest rate cut necessarily would have preempted or softened the market meltdown we’ve seen over the past couple days, but it certainly does appear that the Fed’s OCD-like focus on inflation blinded it to the severity of what has now become a worldwide credit crunch. And of course, rather than just assuring market liquidity — you know, propping up corporatist interests — cutting interest rates might have helped some threatened homeowners avoid foreclosure by making refinancing more affordable.
I’m just sayin’…
No, Goldy — this is bad.
This is getting close to the final cut in the plan to further distance the poor from the rich. Inflation hurts the poor much more than the rich, and we are now well on our way to Bush’s dreamland USA: much like Mexico, with an impoverished working class, and a corrupt wealthy elite.
What else is interesting is the push to blackball “subprime” borrowers. The truth is, most of the problem is with so called “Type A” loans in which people with “Good Credit” were allowed to state an income without any proof. A lot of well-meaning people multiplied their expected commissions by the number of months they planned to work (e.g. seasonal work) and wrote that number down. Now, the economy is failing and all the unverified and commissions-based income is drying up. Some of these people are defaulting on their loans. That is what the “infusion” of cash will cover — defaults to-date far this month. The result is going to be a fraudulent push to reconsider loans to “subprime” borrowers who were just created in this Bushco wash-out. This crowd will forever more rent from rich developers. Hurting peoples’ credit is also good for the Established Rich.
Prepare for pounds of butter to cost $10 at Safeway any day now.
We’re already in a period of high inflation, remember that oil went from $20 to $70+. It’s just that this government fudges with their inflation numbers, so it doesn’t come out so bad. What the Fed’s worrried about is wage inflation.
So why do you want housing prices too stay high so badly, Goldy? I sure don’t, I plan on buying again once prices come down.
The Fed is just doing its job: maintaing price stability and encouraging economic growth. They’ve done this in the past.
What they’re doing now is buying government bonds through the actions of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The FOMC actions have the effect of injecting cash/liquidity into the banking system, and, like it or not, the banking system is the mechanism the FOMC and Fed use the most to regulate the economy to strive towards the Fed’s stated goals.
The Fed’s other tools include the discount rate and other interest rate figures. These other items are a bit harsher in their effect – kinda like using a baseball bat to kill a fly.
In any event, I wouldn’t make a big deal out of what the Fed is currently doing. They move liquidity into and out of the system all the time.
OMG I’m in agreement with someone with the word Libertarian in their name. How the hell did that happen?
Our current government (Clinton was no different) will always help the rich first and more.
In this case, Bernanke’s stumbling attempts to bolster everyone’s confidence may be interpreted as evidence of desperation. Trying to convince the world to wait and see whether they’d start lending money for even further less than Uncle Sam is paying to borrow it was pretty dicey. Now, caving in and pumping out billions raises a legitimate concern that it’ll just devalue the dollars in every pocket, bank vault and matress.
As to the real estate market itself, I’m personally optimistic in behalf of my daughter and her fiance. This is getting them closer to being able to buy a house in Santa Monica, since they’re both pretty securely employed. As sale prices are dropping and they keep saving, they’re getting closer, faster, to being among the fortunate young’uns who’ll be able to buy with a substantial down payment, taking out a flat-rate, long-term mortgage. You know–just like us old geezers used to take for granted.
I don’t see why I should agree to the destruction of my pension income (which I spent a lifetime working to earn) in order to prop up irresponsible lenders. Let ’em eat worthless paper. Government bailouts simply encourage more greedy and irresponsible behavior by those who created the problem in the first place.
As for the stock market, much of this year’s rise in share prices has been fueled by greedy speculation on companies that gamblers (not investors, but gamblers) believe will be acquired at a premium in leveraged buyouts. Why should I eat inflation to keep LBOs going so shareholders can reap artificial capital gains?
It’s true that I’ve profited handsomely from the stock market runup (my portfolio has gained about 40%, on an annualized basis, since January 1) and from the share repurchases and buyout frenzy fueled by extreme credit liquidity (among other things, I owned Dow Jones shares and pocketed a chunk of Rupert’s money). But stock market winnings are temporary and ephemeral; whereas inflation, and the destruction it wreaks on savings and pensions, is permanent. Your thinking is off base, Goldy. What we need is responsible fiscal policies. Debt devaluation looks better on paper than it works in the real world; debtors don’t really get a net benefit from it, because they (along with the rest of us) pay for it with higher prices and more expensive credit in the future. You don’t really believe that if lenders get burned by inflation, they’ll continue lending at today’s rates, do you? The moment lenders believe their principal may be devalued, they’re going to demand higher interest to make up the difference. There’s no free lunch in this world.
@2 “We’re already in a period of high inflation, remember that oil went from $20 to $70+.”
There’s a difference between monetary inflation and real inflation. Surging oil prices reflect elements of both.
When a cheap resource has to be replaced by a more expensive resource, you get real inflation. Oil demand has grown to a point where part of the supply must come from expensive-to-extract sources. The world economy’s cost structure has become more expensive as a result.
Monetary inflation, on the other hand, does not occur as a result of higher resource costs, lower production efficiency, or other factors that affect the real cost of goods and services. Rather, it is simply a revaluation of currency in relation to goods and services. If the purchasing power of the dollar declines by 10% then oil producing countries need to charge 10% more for their oil just to stay even. And that’s what they do when we devalue our currency. Not raising their dollar price would amount to a price cut. You aren’t going to see the Saudis selling oil for $28 again because $28 isn’t worth $28 anymore.
@6 Short term pain for overextended borrowers in the housing sector will be good for housing in the long run. Much of the reckless lending that drove up home prices and is now causing a credit crisis was to speculators who bought homes to flip them. These people need to get burned big time so they’ll never do it again. Speculation is never healthy for any market and is very unfair to legitimate borrowers and buyers. Federal monetary policy should make the flippers eat their gambling losses, not shift these losses to innocent borrowers, consumers, and pensioners.
There is, of course, speculation in the stock market as well. This year’s market runup was largely fueled by leveraged buyouts that created expectations of more companies being purchased for above fair market value, leading to speculation in their stocks. Fears that easy credit bankrolling LBOs may dry up is behind the 5% decline in the Dow average, and there’s probably another 5% to go of downside to go. But the market won’t level off at that point, because we’re moving into a weakening economy and lower corporate fundamentals. That’s not factored into stock prices yet, and all of the fundamentals-based decline is yet to come. It’s time to look for opportunities to cash in profits and get the hell out.
And fuck you very much, Mr. Goldstein. You must have become unhinged by my latest, post 109, here:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3279#comments
The Republicans will be forced to campaign in ’08 against the backdrop of a slowing economy and rising unemployment. That will absolutely kill ’em in the House races, and make things even tougher than they already at the top of the ticket. If you’re a Republican, get on your fucking knees and start praying, because it will take divine intervention to save your sorry asses in the coming election.
Impressive, Mr. Rabbit, throughout. Not much nuance at this venue, aside from yours.
@13 Another erudite idiot drawing lines between random dots to discover correlations that don’t exist. There is NO CONNECTION between early 20th century eugenics and late 20th century abortion. How does the fact that women’s libbers are abortion’s chief defenders square with your theory that abortion is a plot by white male elitists to keep the lower classes down? That’s bullshit. Shrinking the pool of cheap labor by 30 million must gall you to no end! Yep, abortion drives up wages by shrinking the labor supply. That’s what your comment is really about.
When you get to the bottom of it, every conservative position boils down to cheap labor, and every conservative argument is merely cover for their burning desire to live well on the sweat of others.
If you believe this crisis wasn’t foreseen by the credit and lending institutions you need to only look back before the 2006 elections and ponder why the lending industry lobbied the Republican congress, which they bought and paid for, to rewrite the bankruptcy laws.
Shitty legislation for the People, signed into law by the failure in chief.
@15 The professor I took my Money & Banking course from in college was an alumnus of JFK’s Council of Economic Advisers, and I was one of only two students who earned an A in that class. In fact, economics was the only subject in which I earned straight-As in college.
@15 and @19
What’s sad is that I bought my house in 2003 and am trying to sell it right now. We redid the kitchen, both bathrooms, and the basement, yet we’re probably not going to see much in return for our investment now. It really wasn’t our intention to “flip” the house, we just wanted to make improvements for our own sake. We’ve had to drop the price $40K already and there’s still not much activity. In the new neighborhood where our new house is being built, no new houses in the development have been bought since the spring, but they’re all still going up without buyers. I wonder if living in an empty neighborhood of nice new houses will be a phenomenon of the next few years.
Lee, I’m sorry to see you lose money in the real estate market, but my track record in real estate over the last 30 years has been break-even at best, and that’s taking into account the deductibility of morrtgage interest for income taxes.
People don’t realize that you can lose a ton of money very quickly in real estate. The market is far more volatile than most assume. Timing is everything in the real estate market, though holding apiece of property for very long periods does make money for the investor, in most cases. Real estate investors must have cast-iron stomachs and nerves of steel to endure the long term. and, of course, you’ve got to sit in one place for a helluva long time!
Investing in real estate is a good PART of an investment program, but shouldn’t be the total package.
Now that we’ve taken care of my credentials, it’s time once again to debunk Redneck’s ludicrous assertion that cutting taxes ALWAYS increases revenue:
Disregarding FICA revenues, which were not affected by Bush’s tax cuts, federal revenue* was as follows:
2000 – $1,372,376,000,000 (baseline year)
2001 – $1,297,063,000,000
2002 – $1,152,413,000,000
2003 – $1,069,364,000,000
2004 – $1,146,664,000,000
2005 – $1,279,114,000,000 (estimate)
2006 – $1,346,019,000,000 (estimate)
* Combination of individual and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes (including inheritance tax) but excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes
Source of data: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....?Docid=203
As can be seen from the above data, federal revenues DROPPED after Bush’s tax cuts, and still haven’t caught up with pre-tax cut levels.
It’s true, of course, that tax cuts can, in the right circumstances, result in increased revenue. This is easily illustrated with the following example:
A tax cut will always stimulate more economic activity, but will not always result in more revenue. If taxes are zero, revenues will be zero, regardless of what the level of economic activity is. If the tax rate is 100%, revenues also will be zero, because there is no incentive for economic activity. So, obviously, there is a point somewhere between a 0% and 100% tax rate where revenues are maximized.
If the existing tax rate is below that point, cutting the tax rate will result in additional revenue losses. On the other hand, if the tax rate is above that point, a tax cut will move revenues closer to the point of maximization.
Raw data from the Reagan era is mixed and more difficult to assess because Reagan raised taxes six times from 1982 to 1987, and the revenue growth during that period is due in part to these tax increases. This is what the raw data looks like:
1980 – $359,309,000,000 (baseline)
1981 – $416,552,000,000
1982 – $416,268,000,000
1983 – $391,569,000,000
1984 – $427,109,000,000
1985 – $468,926,000,000
1986 – $486,313,000,000
1987 – $551,035,000,000
(same data source)
What you see, of course, is revenue dropping in the early years of the Reagan presidency when his tax cuts took effect, and rising in the later years when his tax increases took effect. The data clearly show that his tax cuts started at a point on the revenue curve below the point of revenue maximization.
In fact, in democracies, where leaders must cater to tax-sensistive electorates, tax rates rarely get above the point of revenue maximization. Other factors, of course, influence revenues – the most important of which is the economic cycle. But in general, taxation is below the revenue optimization point most (or all) of the time, so tax cuts ordinarily will result in revenue losses, not revenue gains. What certainly is NOT true is that cutting taxes ALWAYS increases revenues, as argued by conservative tax-cutters. In Bush’s case, this argument is demonstrably false by simple reference to the revenue statistics.
Mark the Gasbag is full of shit.
@20 You’re a victim of unlucky timing. I was forced by family circumstances to buy my burrow in a tight market at a high price and then wait many years for it to appreciate. You do not ordinarily recoup your investment in improvements. Usually you get the best return from kitchen and bathroom improvements, which typically pay back about 80% to 90% of what you invested in them, if they’re done right.
Moonbat Quiz:
Since most of you get your “news” from the old media, how many of you think this was a bad week on wall street? how bad was the “bloodbath”?
@20 “I wonder if living in an empty neighborhood of nice new houses will be a phenomenon of the next few years.”
In other parts of the country, yes, less so here. There isn’t a housing surplus in Puget Sound. That would change if employment shrank in our region.
It will take about 2-3 years for the national housing industry to work off its inventory surplus. This will vary by area, of course. Seattle is the country’s healthiest housing market right now because we were one of the last cities to recover from the Dubya Recession that began in March 2001, we were one of the cities hardest hit by the dot-com bust, our recovery started later than the rest of the nation, and our economy and employment are still growing whereas the economic cycle has matured in the rest of the country.
@21 I didn’t make any money on my first two Seattle burrows, and I’ve been in my third burrow for nearly 20 years. It was worth less than I paid for it for the first 10 years I owned it.
I made a damn lucky guess when I loaded up on oilfield services stocks last summer and fall.
That has been the #1 top performing sector in the 2007 stock market.
It’s important to understand the money isn’t in the big oil companies anymore. The reason is most of the world’s oil reserves have now been nationalized, and the oil majors no longer own the oil in the ground; they are only service providers now. I did well because I recognized the fact that the best opportunities to grow margins were in the companies that build the tools, equipment, rigs, and platforms.
Tax Cuts and Fed Revenue
Roger Rabbit is full of shit when he denies the link between cutting tax rates and subsequent increases in federal revenue.
http://www.treas.gov/press/rel.....growth.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....s_R/R1.cfm
Mr. Cynical should have listened to me when I told him to buy NOV at $58 last year. It’s up over $5 today and closed at $116. He would have doubled his money. Dumb jackass! That’s what he gets for not believing the rabbit. His politics are fucked up, too.
Mr. Cynical should have listened to me when I told him to buy NOV at $58 last year. It’s up over $5 today and closed at $116. He would have doubled his money. Dumb jackass! That’s what he gets for not believing the rabbit. He’s wrong about everything else, too.
@31 Redneck is lying when he says I denied there’s a link between tax cuts and increased revenue. I said cutting taxes doesn’t ALWAYS increase revenue, but sometimes it does. See #22.
@22 vs. @31: You read, you decide.
@35 I think most people here (trolls excepted) are smart enough to see that Redneck misrepresented what I wrote.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a temporary interest rate cut, which would give the stock market a pop so I can sell my stocks at inflated prices to rich Republican suckers. To buy overpriced shares, call 1-900-RIP-OFF, all proceeds go directly to the Help Roger Rabbit Live Like A Republican Fund.
@24 What’s next, a guy who can’t pay a $100 debt is gonna give us advice on shorting the market?
I was listening to Thom Hartman(yes, THAT Thom Hartman, on “Air America”), and he said there was no crisis in social security due to payroll tax increases that occurred in the early 1980s to prepare for the baby boomers’ retirements.
So I guess we’re all good to go there.
Rabbit – You are a fool. You don’t know the difference between gambling and investing. Maybe you’ll win your gamble or maybe you’ll lose. But you are not an “investor”.
Anybody your age betting on individual stocks is fucking idiot… which you have demonstrated here quite clearly.
Kudos to Goldy … I thought he was drinking to much Frank Sheir’s cool-aid.
The worry I see is that adding liquidity to the housing market will do to housing prices. If it keeps them high, doesn’t that hurt limit folks ability to spend on other things?
While I understand the importance of people NOT having spending money, doesn’t matter HOW they spend the money?
If this action distorts the market by supporting house prices, isn’t that an indirect tax on all other activities?
@40 WADR
what IS a fucking idiot? A stupid person with a libido? Are fucking idiots worse than ones who do not fuck?
An oldy but goodie…
…the oil industry is a zero sum game ( like checkers )
Commentby headless lucy— 4/9/06@ 2:56 pm
RR, et al., re money & banking:
Would that have been Walter Heller? The wizard of fine-tuning a macro-economy like a Strad? Apres Heller & Keynes, the deluge. That’s why Milton Friedman rules.
Just read through all the posts an can say without a doubt that this sort of stuff gives me a headache.
And the direct connect between 1920s eugenics and post-Roe abortion is, as often noted here, Margaret Sanger. Her dots from then to now are well connected.
—
Suppose that if we can do a 20-billion bailout of the peso and a Rubin bailout of the bhat, we can bail out Goldy’s portfolio of greed and the obscene and unearned appreciated value of his private property, formerly anathematized by the rad left.
SJ @ 41: There’s more to this than the incubation of a bubble or the vulgar rescue of a corrupt sector, the sub-prime market. What’s going on is the theory & practice of dominos. Hayes Barnard (a radio voice even creepier than Goldy’s or Theresa Joy’s) and all his sub-prime bottom feeder buds from Bainbridge to Bar Harbor are sneezing, and the world is catching cold. The sub-prime crisis rocks the stocks here, and there (France … deep into our liquidity trap), and elsewhere. This smells a lot like the bhat of 1998.
It’s very similar. However, the big news about this is that the Fed was actually purchasing mortgage-backed debt. The “liquidity crisis” basically means that no one wanted to buy mortgage backed securities (at least the subprime ones). It’s a) somewhat of a bailout and b) very unusual for the Fed to buy anything except Treasuries. This is very unusual. One figure I’ve read a couple of places estimated that approximately 7% larger money supply yesterday due to this intervention. Which is a huge, and very inflationary, jump if it’s not pulled out very quickly.
@47 I know this. My concern stems from my incredulity toward the extension of the pin factory model, with its concrete symbols of capital investment, to our current mix of service and virtual capitalism. If we divert capital to non productive aspects of the economy, in the process diluting the value of the dollar, don’t we decrease the capital invested in the various forms of virtual property?
Put another way, it seems to me that proppinbg up the low end of the mortgage market may come at the expense of capital value available to Google.
Agreed. That’s why I favor popping bubbles, non-productive by definition, rather than propping them. But in a Tom Friedman world, rather than a Milton Friedman world, we may not afford the luxury of doing the right thing.
(To be fair: Uncle Milton, who understood how the world worked, may already be as functionally dead as past tense. The world as it works now may be as far removed from the cutting-edge Milton Friedman of 1976 as Friedman was removed from Adam Smith’s pins of 1776. This isn’t Milton’s Chicago or Hayek’s Vienna any more.)
Well, darlings, the grownups won’t let chadt come out and play, so I’m outta here. A day without chadt is a day without sunshine, so I’ll just veg in spiritual darkness until Monday.
veg in spiritual darkness until Monday.
In a fungus cellar no doubt, good riddance.
3 Lib
Well, considering that the Fed PLUS major banks around the world have been simultaneously pumping money into the system precisely because of the current mortgage meltdown, we probably should think it’s something of a “big deal.”
No one is under some sort of mistaken impression regarding a “routine” operation. Big things are happening.
34 RR
Nope. Cutting taxes always decreases revenue. Sometimes other factors increase revenue during periods of tax cuttting, but with all other factors equal, tax revenues will always decrease due to tax cuts.
It looks like the problem we currently have is that there was so much money sloshing around that it ended up going into speculating Ponzi-like on real estate and on financing crap loans to suckers.
So why was it that the Bush tax cuts didn’t end up spurring the rich to make sound, solid, growth-oriented investments in American industry? Gotta wonder, because they promised that this would be the outcome. Why wasn’t it?
My theory is because at the same time the Bush administration basically encouraged the rich to become crooks.
What the Fed basically did today was to print money and toss it like confetti on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in hopes that enough people would bend over, pick it up, and use it to buy stocks. After the third truckload of greenbacks (actually the virtual equivalent thereof, flying through a bunch of financial institutions’ computers), enough people did to make the market close with a net gain for the week. Probably the reason for this is that everyone became convinced the Fed is now panicky enough that every time the marked hiccups, it’ll do the same thing.
This means cash is being printed on flash paper with disappearing ink. If you know that, and you have a bunch of it in your hand, you want to hurry up and buy something else with it before it disappears.
54 “My theory is because at the same time the Bush administration basically encouraged the rich to become crooks.”
Not just the rich….everybody. The crowds of punks downtown beating people up is another symptom of the same thing. When nobody has any hope, there’s no incentive to do the right thing. The actions people take motivated by rampant fear or rampant greed are quite similar.
One more thing. I’ve had much ugly fun here, using Goldstein’s bandwidth to pick on Goldstein. It’s one of those solitary furtive pleasures that most of us don’t talk about in polite society or mixed company.
But Goldy, who is no economist, got a big economic get here. He was magnificently right. In fact, he was eerily prescient. In fact, it’s as if he and Bush were not just on the same page but were singing a lilting 2-part harmony from the same libretto.
I think you need to think about that. There are no accidents, so connect the dots. I predict that, after martial law, the 22nd (?) Amendment will be whacked by executive order and we’ll have Bushstein, Four More Years.
Fuck me.
@57 What the hell are you talking about? Can anyone translate this gibberish?
For anyone who’s wondering, #57 wasn’t posted by me.
@44 No.
@43 Yes and no. Lucy isn’t entirely wrong. While additive elements predominate, the oil market does have some elements of a zero-sum game.
One thing’s for damn sure, higher oil prices don’t put more oil in the ground.
58 – Can anyone translate this gibberish?
Why bother?
I agree with Roger Rabbit on his economic advice.
I will say that flooding the market artificially can have unintended consequences. I think housing is in need of a correction, I believe trying to stabilize it in the short term may be a good first step, but the housing market needs to adjust to peoples ability to pay a realistic mortgage.
There are many factors that are bumping up against each other.
One of which is my personal theory that the Chinese government would like to see the US in recession during the Olympics. Their pullout has caused this crisis, and they do things for political reasons. They could decide to sell off more of their American mortgage securities, sending more shock waves through the market, while also selling off T-Bills at a small loss, in effect competing with the Fed for available capital.
Just a theory, but I also predicted the Chinese would stop buying T-Bills, and then would lose their taste for Mortgage Securities. They have a lot of both now, and therefore have a lever on our economy.
We will see whether they use it as an investment, or a weapon.
The housing market that’s suffering is the one that comes with the longest commute distances. Now that the cost of gasoline is between $2.50 and $3 a gallon, these home buyer’s incomes can’t do both the 15mpg Extravagalante SUVx and the payments on the 4-car garage w/attached house in lovely Sprawland Downs.
We will see whether they use it as an investment, or a weapon.
I don’t think it serves their interest to “weaponize” their position in American paper.
Goldy, just admit for once in your life that you were wrong and quit trying to convince people that inflation is a positive. More inflation is the worst thing to wish on most of us, even your lefty choir disagrees with you on this one.
Goldy is now an Economist?
So why are there now record levels of taxes coming into the feds?
A: Bill Clinton’s Economy 8 years later
B: The propect of raising 500 +++++++ Billion more in taxes by the dems
C: The Bush Tax Cuts
And about your massive SCHIP expansion all funded through massive new 20,000% tabacco taxes….you might want to read the USA Today report
Smoking declines as taxes increase
http://www.usatoday.com/news/h.....htm?csp=34
You won’t pay for SCHIP or SH.IT that way
Another dumb SCHIP boondoggle.
My Humidor’s are full to the brim…..:)
So, is the Fed going to replace the 30K that I have lost in the market in the last 4 weeks? No, because I accept risk when I made my investments. I will not be crying over it, I knew I was taking a risk, and over time, I believe that the economy will recover.
But Goldy, so called liberal, thinks it is dandy that the government uses my tax money to bail out Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns for their bad investments, as well as people who took risks to buy houses, thinking they would make money through appreciation. To bail out people who have speculated on housing by leveraging their ass to Mars.
Well the music has stopped playing, and there are not enough chairs to go around. Somebody loses. The ship hit an iceberg, and there are not enough life boats to go around.
Guess who gets the chairs? The lifeboats? Those rich fucks that GWB has made richer and richer. Those guys who pay 15% income tax because their income is considered a capital gain, while I pay 22%(plus social security of 7.6%) on my income, because it is “just labor”.
And then you say “Fuck you” to me?
When did this blog become the Weekly Standard?
69:”My Humidor’s are full to the brim…..:)”
So are you.
Unfortunately, Goldy, you have approached the goat on this one.
71, Chadt Baby, I won’t be paying a single dime into your F’n SH.IT program, filled up my Humidors early, so who’s full of SH.IT
Ha Ha
You!
Pay up sucker and
Have a massively overpriced Stoggie on me….Ha Ha….:)