i probably would be on board but i dont deal in things that could never happen. why waste the time ranting about it? seems rather childish to me but hey, you are the "logicman".
"i would probably be on board" You know damn well that you'd never be "on board", parasite, because it would upset the tax-funded gravy train your loser ass depends on.
OK, let's recap. I said "How about raising the age for full retirement? Do you realize that 65 was almost the average life span when SS began? Since then, it's been raised one whopping year." You responded with a table from the SS website showing that the full retirement age is finally going up...but not nearly fast enough to meet life expectancy. I demonstrated that you missed the point. To keep up with life expectancy, the age should be around 73 by now. You responded with an ad hominem-riddled hissy fit. You couldn't handle being wrong. You didn't even bother responding to the point and tried to change the subject instead. The "facts" are on my side. As for trading, you have no idea how or what I trade. Open up a trading journal here, post live trades and I'll do the same. I'll make it easy and only trade ETFs about once a month. Are you game? Or are you going on another passive-aggressive tangent again?
you arent very bright but you are funny. i have been self sufficient probably longer than you have been alive judging by the maturity level of your posts. cheer up though. you are probably one of those republicans that believes you will get to go live in heaven in a mansion where the streets are paved in gold when you die. i sure as hell will not be going there. presto we both live in different worlds.
The most ironic/untrue/asinine* statement so far. Walter Mitty had nothing on you. * Unless "self-sufficient" now means living on the dole. With the new food stamp commercials and all the talk of "investing" in handout programs, maybe that's possible.
I suppose you were intentionally exaggerating to make your point that the U.S. debt needs to be brought down. It will be eventually. It is large in absolute terms but not too large for a country with an economy the size of the U.S. to handle. There is good debt and bad debt. What is important from here on out is that any additional debt be investment debt. That's a good kind of debt.
And I've taken sh!ts with higher IQs than you. Like I've said, we'll eventually settle this in the streets. Looking forward to it. I hope we live close to each other.
Rogoff and Reinhart specifically did their analysis of debt crises on percentage terms because they wanted to normalize between economies of different sizes. That you would think that US economy, because it's "big", would be exempt from the dire consequences of having a debt burden of nearly 100% of annual GDP is unsurprising, because you are an idiot. God, why did you deem that I should be born at the same time that morons like this guy exist? What did I do to deserve living on the planet at the same time as piezoe? Whatever it was, I promise you, I am sorry!!!!!
they say people that use a lot of profanity in their writing do it because they dont have the intellect to make a rational argument. in the streets. lol. you would lose. you are one of those imature tough guy big talkers that would go into a bar and challenge someone to a fight to the death out back. you arent bright enough and too emotional to deal with someone like me. if you challenged me i would calmly accept and tell you to meet me in the street in one hour. then i would get a sniper rifle and get you from a window when you showed up. i dont fight to puff my ego. i fight to win.
I'm puzzled. "Dollar down" ... "Stocks Down"???? I don't understand your analysis. Fed QE has been a major driver for the market (UP). Weaker Dollar = higher stock prices (in the nominal sense). Since some time in the mid to late seventies inflation has been the number one driver of both corporate earnings and the equities market.