TPS

Do a little research on what happened several months ago. We said that refineries were actually closing down for good, not seasonal closings. The big change in refining is that the most competitive refiners are the ones that re-tooled to refine the cheaper heavy crude that's coming from shale oil out west. The east coast refineries that closed used the more expensive light sweet Brent and Dubai and were losing money. There is new capacity coming online to refine this heavy crude. The shale oil boom was one of my reasons for arguing that the economy was finally recovering, at least until it was hit by the austerity measures of payroll tax increase and sequester cuts.

No dipshit, their data included several errors, which means their conclusion about declining growth when the debt/gdp reaches 90% was exaggerated.

Yes, I said the economy was picking up steam in 2012Q4, and the payroll tax increase combined with higher gas prices would slow it down, as it is doing. I said that oil and gas prices were moving up at that time because traders also saw this, and were making their bets. When we were arguing about the gas price article you posted, I concluded with the quote I re-posted, which was dead on.Regarding refinery rates, I said refineries have closed, and that was one of the issues behind higher gas prices. I believe lybob posted a link to this as well. So your misrepresentation of what i said negates everything you've ever said...

I also said this from a post at the beginning of the year, after your claims that inflation was significant because the price of gas was 4 cents higher than the same time lasts year: "I guarantee you that HFs and other investors will bail from these bets very soon because the combination of higher prices and payroll tax is causing the economy to slow, so oil and gas inventories will rise, and this "mini bubble" will pop, all while the Fed continues to pump more liquidity into the system." And I qualified my growth remarks at the beginning of the year that the payroll tax and spending cuts would cause the first half to be slow, but the second half is where we'll see growth take off. Don't be so selective .

Try this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-16/reinhart-rogoff-paper-cited-by-ryan-faulted-for-serious-errors-.htmlIt's been all over the news thought, their paper on debt levels and growth.

So much for that 90% break point... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/blame-the-pundits-too/

Physically, Easley reminds me of Moulds...if only... This is the drop dead year for Troup and Easley: put up, or ship out.

It's obvious. You need someone who knows everything about earth, and every other planet and universe. So it's DC Tom. Except I think he's already been. It's clear he's been impregnated with alien dna...

Well, are you going to stick with the story about how Fed "money printing" will eventually lead to inflation, eventually? Or, are you going to finally understand that inflation only happens when consumers actually have more income to spend relative to supply capacity? In other words, the Austrian world view is wrong.

Hmmm...what happened to your story about the Fed pumping all this money into the economy leading to a 36% rise in commodity prices since 2008? I wonder what that % rate is now....

While I expected this little bubble to burst, it looks like someone yelled fire in the middle of Wall Street...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-17/oil-falls-fourth-time-in-five-days-on-inventories-outlook.html

If a partner can be found, then I think it's the opitmal play this year . I was thinking this morning that there wasn't one player they could pick at 8 that would generate excitement...

Uh...Bush's wars and tax cuts, and a global recession?

I thought I answered it by saying in the age of austerity everything is on the table, and everyone will lose in the name of deficit reduction. How do they come up with tax brackets and cap values? They're bureaucrats, they probably spend several meetings working this stuff out....

From the article: If the IRS said it was going to take away your accruals past $3million, then I could understand Tasker's outrage.

That's what I meant when I said the "max you can put in over your lifetime." It creates an annual cap and essentially a lifetime cap. That is, if your balance reaches $3 million before you retire, then you can't put anymore into tax-deferred accounts. Btw, as LA pointed out, I haven't said i think it's a good/bad idea. My entire point all along is that Tasker's statement is over the top:

How's that QE-gold-commodity-inflation thingy working out? This has to be driving Peter Schiff nuts!

I'm questioning the original position that this policy should enrage us, when it is not any different from what the government does with most tax policy--adding a cap on things. Do I like what's become of our big brother government? No. Are they too involved in my life? Yes. Would I like to see less spending and lower taxes? Yes.Independent of those broad questions: Should the government cap tax deductions, tax-deferred shields, etc.? Probably.

It doesn't do that. It sums up all tax-deferred accounts. I'm more concerned about how they surveil my communication...

This policy does NOT do that. In addition to the annual cap that you can put into a tax-deferred account, this creates a maximum amount that you can put into a deferred account during your lifetime--it does not prevent you from using your after-tax income to invest. You can still put money into a Roth IRA (aren't we all supposed to be maxing this out?); you can still put any amount of $ into a mutual fund, or any other type of investment from you after-tax income. This proposed policy does NOT tell you to stop saving; it gives a max on how much you can put into deferred accounts.

That is the underlying economic issue: are the additional revenues generated today worth more than the loss of revenues in the future? As Chef could tell you, a $ in taxes today is more valuable than a $ in the future. Are people more concerned about the deficit today or the future deficit? And today's deficit is compounding.... That is independent of the political issue of how you feel about the government capping a program it created...

Is this the only proposal in the budget? How many different proposals are there to generate more revenues or reduce expenditures? Should I be irate at this one or should I be more angry about the chained CPI's impact on SS? The majority of you here have been pining for austerity, but when there is a proposal you don't like, you're enraged? Every government policy has differential impacts. Some hit the bottom more than the top, and vice versa. Why did they cap mortgage interest? Why is there an alt min tax? How is this any different? This was an incentive the government started in 1978, and like many other tax-based incentives, they have decided to cap how much they have allowed you to defer in the first place. In the age of austerity, everyone is a taking a hit.

Actually, all you said was that we should be enraged by the article which impacts very few people. My entire point in this thread is your assumption that we should all express righteous indignation at the proposal.

The hypocrisy is your original post stating that if we are not as outraged as you are, then we are not capable of rational discussion. The government created a tax incentive that allowed people to defer taxes on some portion of their current income. What is so outrageous about the government deciding to change or tweak its own program? Are you going to try to say that this isn't about your own political bias? If you think it will increase the reliance on the state, about what % of the population ends up with $3 million at retirement? Who is going to be affected by this?

Semantics to a certain extent. There are caps to how much I can put into a tax-deferred account. Those caps (deductions from today's taxable income) )essentially dictate how much income I can shield from today's taxes. It doesn't change the point. The proposal puts a cap on the overall amount that you can put into tax-deferred savings vehicles; it does not tell you how much you can save overall. Do you have any investments that are not in 401ks? Will there be a limit on those? No.