Too funny, too apropos:
Very Mad Money

Category: Economy, Politics, Television, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

39 Responses to “Hot Ladies Talking Money with Bald Dudes”

  1. kd says:

    Thats pete he’s making fun of!

  2. Justin says:

    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!

  3. Jdog33 says:

    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.

  4. VJ says:

    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“.
    .

  5. Justin says:

    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

  6. catfixer says:

    Love the hot babes/bald dudes jewel. The rest of it is stupid.

  7. Steelduck says:

    @ 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.

  8. dukeb says:

    The Cavuto/USA graphic was classic…what a baby-faced moron.

  9. Walker says:

    You can definitely tell that Jon doesn’t have his writers.

  10. Bill in Carolina says:

    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.

  11. bluestatedon says:

    “…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?

  12. grace says:

    “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.

  13. cathompson says:

    Hopefully I wont have to watch my taxes getting flushed down a hole in Iraq anymore.

  14. JT says:

    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.

  15. Don says:

    I just wish I was bald, so the hot ladies would talk to me.

  16. Jdamon says:

    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….

  17. wunsacon says:

    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.

  18. michael schumacher says:

    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.

  19. Francois says:

    @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!

  20. zot23 says:

    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.

  21. pacified says:

    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!

  22. grace says:

    “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.

  23. Dianna says:

    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.

  24. LFC says:

    “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?

  25. Hot Ladies Talk Money With Bald Dudes

    Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz….

  26. VJ says:

    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.
    .

  27. Doug Watts says:

    I don’t think Jon Stewart ever made a solid, factual, evidence-based case for why regulations on child labor, minimum wage, maximum daily and weekly hours and minimum workplace safety standards are (a) necessary and (b) do not actually hurt the workers they are allegedly supposed to “help.”

  28. VJ says:

    Jdamon,

    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’m afraid not.

    1) For the umpteenth time, the World Wide Web didn’t exist until 1989, the first web browser (Mosaic) wasn’t even invented until 1993, and commercial dial-up didn’t exist until 1995.

    The national economy was rocketing ahead LONG before the “Dot.com” phenomenon.

    2) The reduction in Capital Gains rates happened YEARS after he national economy was rocketing ahead, and did not help the national economy whatsoever.

    BTW, Bush’s budget deficit, while spending all the money on the Iraq war, is pretty amazing.

    If by “amazing” you mean the largest in history (outside of world wars), then yes.

    I can’t imagine what our deficit will be under [B]illary….

    A surplus ?
    .

  29. Greg0658 says:

    VJ – your not on the page that Chinas rise was assisted by the Clinton WH and Wal*Mart?

    Americas manufacturing sector would refute NAFTA was a benefit. And this early retired construction worker suggests the loss of new factory builds was not in my best interest. My trade sees little work in a trucking warehouse.

    I will grant you that union wages in American factories were a problem in a global world, but those wages supported an American standard of living without shenanigans.

    I’m on board with passenger rail services coming back into vogue. If we keep populating, we better get something to thin the roads. 20 mph to a 40 mile away job, uugh.

  30. David says:

    Memo to John Stewart at 3:50. FDR actually did worsen the Depression. A little thing called the New Deal (which also helped push us down the Road to Serfdom that Hayek tried to warn about).

  31. Kevin says:

    Doug,

    Jon Stewart probably never made those solid, factual, evidence-based cases because he’s a comedian. He’s trying to get laughs, not drive ideology. The only agenda he’s pushing is that of humor.

  32. Greg0658 says:

    my regret in hind sight – vote’g to put wage increases into pension funds

    it turned out to be a shot in the leg – because those dollars got invested in foreign lands

  33. Doug Watts says:

    Kevin — What I wrote was a joke. Jon Stewart and I say sarcastic things about the minimum wage and child labor laws and laws requiring safe work places because, as this thread shows, there are still people who think all of these basic legal protections are actually bad. Myself and Jon like making fun of those people because they deserve it. Cheers.

  34. ef says:

    No one says it straighter than Jon Stewart. You asked, who do we trust. I trust Jon Stewart. His commonsense, humor, and humanity are awesome, and no one is safe from it. When did WS become the end all, be all, rather than a passive component of the real business environment. Let’s get back to business. Let’s educate our citizens, put them to work in a safe/respectable environment, create new solid ideas that solve real problems, so we all benefit. And stop selling fear.

  35. Todd says:

    Yes, it’s really amazing what accounting legere-de-main you can accomplish when you don’t include the war spending in the annual budget and instead put it in an emergency supplementary. Really amazing when that emergency supplementary goes on for 5 years.

    Actually, what really amazes me JDamon is how you can believe that when the national debt has climbed to $9 trillion from $4+ trillion in 7 years and you can believe the annual numbers they trot out as real????!?!?!?!!?!? Funny how that works out to about $700-750 billion a year and I can’t remember an annual deficit that was over $500 billion.

    And Jdog33, it’s not my hatred of two men that will have me vote Democratic in 2008. It’s my hatred of the incredible hubris of the entire Republican party in DC, with the exception of Chuck Hagel. All of these sycophantic Republican candidates have the audacity to never criticize George W. Bush’s policies that are driving us to an economic abyss. Mike Huckabee mildly criticized Bush’s arrogant foreign policy and bunker mentality (which of course is totally on target) and Mitt Romney came running in demanding an apology. John McCain has defended Bush to the max, and offers some mild blame on ”Rumsfeld’s policy’s”. Hey McCain, let me let you in on a secret: Rumsfeld was Bush’s guy and he held onto him for 4 years despite all the terrible strategy and incredible ineptitude. It’s Bush’s fault all the way. Rumsfeld was completely inept but it’s the President’s job to fire the dude. You’re running for President and don’t realize that? I don’t believe for a second you don’t realize that, McCain, but it’s your incredible hubris showing it’s ugly face. How about some honesty for Chrissakes? Straight talk express….yeaaaaaaah, right….

    My hatred runs alot deeper than for just these 2 guys, and whatever the Democrats do …well, it’s just gonna be better than the last 7 years because nothing can be worse.

    Phew…I feel much better now.

  36. VJ says:

    Greg,

    VJ – your not on the page that Chinas rise was assisted by the Clinton WH…

    I musta missed that page. Exactly what public policy did the Clinton administration get enacted into law that assisted in China’s “rise” in trade ?

    and Wal*Mart?

    Sure, they went from the majority of their products being “Made in the USA” to being a retail outlet for the Chinese prison labor camps. To paraphrase Tina Turner, WHAT’S NAFTA GOT TO DO, GOT TO DO WITH IT ?

    Americas manufacturing sector would refute NAFTA was a benefit.

    That would be difficult to do, as after manufacturing as a percentage of the economy continuously declined during the previous 12 years of Reagan/Poppy Bush, manufacturing was a larger percentage of the economy when President Clinton left office than when he arrived.

    Additionally, after manufacturing jobs continuously declined during the previous 12 years of Reagan/Poppy Bush, there were more manufacturing jobs when President Clinton left office than when he arrived.

    I will grant you that union wages in American factories were a problem in a global world

    Not from my perspective.

    but those wages supported an American standard of living without shenanigans.

    There were 22 million net new jobs created while NAFTA was in effect, the majority of which paid higher than the average wage in the national economy. Unemployment (real unemployment) declined to levels not seen in about four decades, Poverty declined every year for eight consecutive years, the largest decline in decades, accompanied by the longest consecutive increase in real wages in four decades.
    .

  37. Greg0658 says:

    VJ thanks for the “reports” informed reply. I’m popping off in an area I have general arena knowledge in.

    I link the Arkansas Clintons with Wal*Mart and remember donations & nuke secrets scandals therefor thats my “report” link to China.

    My intuition tells me the good Clinton years were sales in factory manufacturing equipment exports.

    Maybe my intuition is wrong. And our current balance problem is the machines are taking our jobs. Maybe we need the machines to slow down for people job security.

    Again thanks for the informed reply. I need to get thru these days into busy days again, so I can stop diagnose’g this problem for us.

  38. joefarmer says:

    Facts, why bother with facts. Decrease taxes and spend more, now that is a brilliant plan, the old get something for nothing. Doesn’t work, never has worked and will never work. All it does is increase debt dramatically.

    National debt has increased more under bush than any other president in US history. Infact the debt has gone from $5 trillion to over $9Trillion and on the way to $10 trillion. IN other words bush has increased debt by more than 80% It took the previous Presidents a couple hundred years to achieve this level of debt. Bush doubled it in his 8 years.

    This country absolutely can’t afford to have another tax cutter, spending increaser in office.

    You think things are bad now, just work on this little something for nothing deal for another 4 years and watch the roof blow off.

  39. Alexandr says:

    Help to cure my dog. Please.

    For payments in USD:
    :56A Intermediary Bank: CITIUS33
    CITIBANK
    NY, USA

    :57D Account with Institution: /36156154
    ICBIUAUK
    INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE BANK
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    :59 Beneficiary Customer: /390140004262070020
    MOROZOV OLEKSANDR
    Address: KREMENCHUK, KERCHENSKAYA STR. 3A, 59