View Full Version : USA & World Economics
Punter 127
08-22-12, 00:41
There isn't an investment or world economic forum on this web site.We've got one now, actually I had talked to Jackson a long time ago about starting this thread, but I never got around to it.
My personal opinion is that things are too far down the road to be fixed. But a MR Presidency would buy me more time to get all my assets properly positioned. And with MR, I would only have to worry about my 401k being stolen through inflation and not through outright confiscation of assets.I agree with Dccpa's post and this looks like a good starting point.
I'm hopeful that we can leave politics and political finger pointing in the other threads.
Punter, I am not sure there is much interest in economics on this board. Personally, I didn't really care much for USA & World economics until I figured out that the effect they were having on my real net worth.
I bring up the issue of gold from time to time to try and get a feel for the opinion of the general public. The small amount of interest on this board is the largest % of interest I have seen on any non precious metals board. Lack of interest by the general public keeps me confident that I am investing in the right area. BTW, Gold and silver are on the verge of another breakout.
Big Boss Man
08-22-12, 23:36
Inventories are low. Interest rates are rising. Opportunity cost of moving is really high if you want to stay at the beach. I think prices bottomed last year and are only moving up from here. http://www.southbaydigs.com/market_report.php
Punter 127
08-23-12, 18:40
Punter, I am not sure there is much interest in economics on this board. Personally, I didn't really care much for USA & World economics until I figured out that the effect they were having on my real net worth.
I bring up the issue of gold from time to time to try and get a feel for the opinion of the general public. The small amount of interest on this board is the largest % of interest I have seen on any non precious metals board. Lack of interest by the general public keeps me confident that I am investing in the right area. BTW, Gold and silver are on the verge of another breakout.I agree with you and if there is not any interest the tread will just die like so any others have. But I thought with all that's going on in the world there might be interest, we'll see.
I also think gold and silver are headed higher, as long as they continue to drive the dollar in the ground gold and silver will be strong.
Big Boss Man
08-23-12, 22:26
I agree with you and if there is not any interest the tread will just die like so any others have. But I thought with all that's going on in the world there might be interest, we'll see.
I also think gold and silver are headed higher, as long as they continue to drive the dollar in the ground gold and silver will be strong.I do not invest in gold and silver but maybe you can tell what's wrong with my opinion. We used to say in the 70s that an ounce of gold should buy a quality men's suit. I think I could buy that 70s suit in 2012 for between $1k to $1. 2k now and the price of gold is $1. 6k. By that standard gold is overpriced.
The Fed is printing money but the velocity of money is way down as in the equation M*V=P*Q as people and entities deleverage their balance sheets. P will not increase until V starts increasing and then the FED can withdraw M from the market. The bet on gold is that the Fed will not be able to execute its strategy. I guess that is what Friedman and Schwartz predict will happen.
I do not invest in gold and silver but maybe you can tell what's wrong with my opinion. We used to say in the 70s that an ounce of gold should buy a quality men's suit. I think I could buy that 70s suit in 2012 for between $1k to $1. 2k now and the price of gold is $1. 6k. By that standard gold is overpriced.
The Fed is printing money but the velocity of money is way down as in the equation M*V=P*Q as people and entities deleverage their balance sheets. P will not increase until V starts increasing and then the FED can withdraw M from the market. The bet on gold is that the Fed will not be able to execute its strategy. I guess that is what Friedman and Schwartz predict will happen.If you read the US Election thread, you will see two long posts I made regarding gold and silver ownership.
It is an urban myth that 1oz of gold should buy a man's suit. The usual reference states that this relationship held even during Roman times. One real fact is that during Roman times, a day's wages was equivalent to a denarius or about 1/10 of an oz of silver. Around 1900 a day's wage had increased to over 1oz of silver. Because of increases in productivity, the old relationships are not relevant today. Also, gold should be measured against the supply of money, not the velocity of money.
Big Boss Man
08-24-12, 13:13
If you read the US Election thread, you will see two long posts I made regarding gold and silver ownership.
It is an urban myth that 1oz of gold should buy a man's suit. The usual reference states that this relationship held even during Roman times. One real fact is that during Roman times, a day's wages was equivalent to a denarius or about 1/10 of an oz of silver. Around 1900 a day's wage had increased to over 1oz of silver. Because of increases in productivity, the old relationships are not relevant today. Also, gold should be measured against the supply of money, not the velocity of money.I consider commodities investing as alternative investing. I allocate 10 percent of my portfolio to it. 5% is in MLPs. I hire Rob Arnott to run the other 5%. Arnott was the editor of the Financial Analyst Journal for a long while. He is the person behind the RAFI indexes. Also has a huge motorcycle collection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Arnott
The name of the fund is Pimco All Asset Authority. PAUDX. It has done well for me but it is also very expensive.
BBM, nothing wrong with MLPs or Rob Arnott. I have learned valuable things from listening to him.
I learned something valuable and scarey today. I called my brokerage to check on the processing of my application for an individual 401k account. I already have 4 accounts at that brokerage. I learned that all new brokerage accounts have to be sent to the US Government for approval under the Patriot Act. Son-of-a-*****.
Thought about it and told them to wire me another 10K to my checking account. Time to buy some more AGEs.
Big Boss Man
08-25-12, 15:57
Arnott just sounds sane to me. I guess its because I am targeting 5 to 6% in my portfolio. Maybe I should give more than 5% of my money to invest?
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=564449
Big Boss Man
08-29-12, 22:49
The Economist invented this index back in 2010. This trade has worked very well for me the 4 years. Basically you look for companies that are expanding their markets in China. Companies that worked for me are MCD, YUM and HON. I think HON is still a buy at these levels. Every apartment in a rising consumer class needs a thermostat. MCD has Europe problems so I hold off here. I an acquainted with a China expert at the Milken Institute and he thinks YUM is the best US company in China right now. Any other ideas? http://www.economist.com/node/21560890
Big Boss Man
08-31-12, 22:53
Good post on how private sector is growing while government sector is shrinking. It makes you wonder where all those borrowed trillions went. How is the government ownership of GM, Ally bank, AEG, Freddie and Fanny accounted for? Romney's big problem is how to grow GDP as he shrinks Government. For example, most construction jobs in Southern California right now rely on some sort of government financing. As we withdraw financing which is now crowding out private investment, I think that there will be a time lag before private investment fills the void. http://www.valueplays.net/2012/08/30/the-riddle-of-the-resilient-economy-solved/?
Punter 127
09-04-12, 00:50
Federal Reserve has already started QE3, says investor Jim Rogers.
Mr Bernanke said in his annual speech at Jackson Hole on Friday that the country's high level of unemployment. It climbed to 8.3pc in July. Is a "grave concern" and that the "economic situation remains far from satisfactory".
With the eurozone crisis spreading to all corners of the globe, traditional safe havens have come to the fore. The gold price, for instance, traded above $1,900 an ounce last year but is now around $1,689. However, Mr Rogers believe this will start to rise again once governments are forced into restarting stimulus measures.
"Unfortunately, all central banks know to do is to print money. You are going to see more money printing, more debasement of currency and, therefore, the price of gold will go much higher over the course of the decade. The situation with gold is that it has been up 11 years in a row without a down year, which is extremely unusual."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9516957/Federal-Reserve-has-already-started-QE3-says-investor-Jim-Rogers.html
I guess Rogers didn't get the memo about gold being overpriced, or perhaps the price of a Seersucker suite is going up.
Who to believe?
Rogers, author of "The Investment Biker," has been saying the same things for twenty years now. This is actually not a bad way to make a living as an economist. It's all cyclical so if you say the same thing all the time you will be right periodically (like a stopped clock) and that will be enough for people to remember you. Such diverse prognosticators as Rogers, Jim Kramer, Gus Sauter, and Bill Gross all adhere to this strategy. There is another guy whose name I can't remember who is a "perma bear" and so he makes a lot of noise when he is right and shuts up when he is wrong (also a good strategy in many situations).
I'm thinking if Greece exits the euro then the dollar will strengthen against the euro and I will go to Spain again and fuck some hookers in Estark 92 and in the lower rent apartments in Fuengirola.
Rogers, author of "The Investment Biker," has been saying the same things for twenty years now. This is actually not a bad way to make a living as an economist. It's all cyclical so if you say the same thing all the time you will be right periodically (like a stopped clock) and that will be enough for people to remember you. Such diverse prognosticators as Rogers, Jim Kramer, Gus Sauter, and Bill Gross all adhere to this strategy. There is another guy whose name I can't remember who is a "perma bear" and so he makes a lot of noise when he is right and shuts up when he is wrong (also a good strategy in many situations).
I'm thinking if Greece exits the euro then the dollar will strengthen against the euro and I will go to Spain again and fuck some hookers in Estark 92 and in the lower rent apartments in Fuengirola.Yes sir Mr. Dickhead, I'm keeping an eye on Spain as well. But, will rent prices plummet, or not? Just the opposite has happened in Miami since the housing implosion, though Miami, for many reasons, is ordinarily a poor yardstick.
Here's an article from yesterday about the panic in Spain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/business/global/money-and-people-leave-spain-as-economic-gloom-deepens.html?_r=1&hp
As for Greece, the drachma?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/business/economy/us-companies-prepare-in-case-greece-exits-euro.html?pagewanted=all
With all the sturm und drang about Europe and what's next, I think its always instructive to follow the anecdotal evidence.
David Tice was the guy I was thinking of. Thanks for the correction. I knew it was C but I think I have been watching too much Seinfeld since I retired.
Federal Reserve has already started QE3, says investor Jim Rogers.
Mr Bernanke said in his annual speech at Jackson Hole on Friday that the country's high level of unemployment. It climbed to 8. 3pc in July. Is a "grave concern" and that the "economic situation remains far from satisfactory".
With the eurozone crisis spreading to all corners of the globe, traditional safe havens have come to the fore. The gold price, for instance, traded above $1, 900 an ounce last year but is now around $1, 689. However, Mr Rogers believe this will start to rise again once governments are forced into restarting stimulus measures.
"Unfortunately, all central banks know to do is to print money. You are going to see more money printing, more debasement of currency and, therefore, the price of gold will go much higher over the course of the decade. The situation with gold is that it has been up 11 years in a row without a down year, which is extremely unusual."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9516957/Federal-Reserve-has-already-started-QE3-says-investor-Jim-Rogers.html
I guess Rogers didn't get the memo about gold being overpriced, or perhaps the price of a Seersucker suite is going up.
Who to believe?I am not a pro when it comes to investing, but what meakes sense is "buy low, sell high". By the way, I missed the boat in February 2011 when gold was around $1200, subsequently, flying almost over the $2000 barrier later in the year. If Israel / US under Romney bombs Iran, I believe you could make some money buying at $1600, conservatively making 20% if selling at $2000.
Big Boss Man
09-04-12, 22:29
Federal Reserve has already started QE3, says investor Jim Rogers.
Mr Bernanke said in his annual speech at Jackson Hole on Friday that the country's high level of unemployment. It climbed to 8. 3pc in July. Is a "grave concern" and that the "economic situation remains far from satisfactory".
With the eurozone crisis spreading to all corners of the globe, traditional safe havens have come to the fore. The gold price, for instance, traded above $1, 900 an ounce last year but is now around $1, 689. However, Mr Rogers believe this will start to rise again once governments are forced into restarting stimulus measures.
"Unfortunately, all central banks know to do is to print money. You are going to see more money printing, more debasement of currency and, therefore, the price of gold will go much higher over the course of the decade. The situation with gold is that it has been up 11 years in a row without a down year, which is extremely unusual."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9516957/Federal-Reserve-has-already-started-QE3-says-investor-Jim-Rogers.html
I guess Rogers didn't get the memo about gold being overpriced, or perhaps the price of a Seersucker suite is going up.
Who to believe?The price of gold rising is hardly an out-of-consensus call right now although forecasting it will continue to go up for an entire decade is gutsy call given what I know about forecasting. My wire house brokerage has a gold forecast of $2000 in the next 12 months.
Don't mind me if I question a trade. I spend lots of time arguing my own trades with myself. John Neff once described his value-driven investment style as a "lifelong argument with the market." I personally find that comment insightful and also find value in questioning my actions.
Also I hope you earn a truckload of money. It is really no skin off my ass. I miss out on many great trades but seem to be doing OK compared to most people. I figure if I can make 7% a year my net worth will double in the next ten years which is my personal goal. I guess I am a bit of a grinder.
Big Boss Man
09-14-12, 23:46
If you read the US Election thread, you will see two long posts I made regarding gold and silver ownership.
It is an urban myth that 1oz of gold should buy a man's suit. The usual reference states that this relationship held even during Roman times. One real fact is that during Roman times, a day's wages was equivalent to a denarius or about 1/10 of an oz of silver. Around 1900 a day's wage had increased to over 1oz of silver. Because of increases in productivity, the old relationships are not relevant today. Also, gold should be measured against the supply of money, not the velocity of money.Mad ramblings from a person stuck in sex prison.
Relating back to a small discussion DCCPA and I had regarding the price of gold and the formula M*V=P*Q, I saw this graph on the velocity of money today.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.pdf?id=M2V
I think that this is a key debate that you are seeing on the economic sites right now. Many analysts and super rich guys like Rogers believe that Bernanke by raising M (money supply) will just increase P (inflation) without affecting Q (goods and services) or V (money velocity) thus making commodities like gold be good to great investments.
Personally I think the size of M is unimportant until V starts increasing. I do not think we will see 1970s-type stagflation with its wage-price spiral because of the decline of unions, robots and workforce globalization.
If Bernanke is right, I think global stocks with well-known brands are the place to invest. If he is wrong I think beachfront real estate is the place to invest. If we are all broke than living at the beach is the way to go. All you need is a pair of baggies, huarache sandals and a t-shirt and maybe a bushy blond hair. (Surfin' USA reference for those born after 1960.) If you are a fan of Merle Haggard then you know cold is bad news for a poor man.
Of course, you young guys if you do not start creating businesses the whole country is dead. Don't be John Galt and go on strike. Do your civic duty.
Punter 127
09-16-12, 21:27
Here is large snip from a ZeroHedge post that I think has some very good points, perhaps you or your ilk can tell us where it's wrong?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-16/there-she-blowsevil-plan-830-bdi-slope-hope
1) The price of Oil. The life blood of modern global based trade, could well spiral upwards out of control. For the first time in history, the national average gas price for the 2nd week of September were over $4. 00. Not a good look for a largely consumption based economy.
2) Will this unprecedented action blow up the Petro-Dollar? As of this September 6th, China and Russia have decided to trade oil in non-petro dollars. Also, Iran can sell their oil to them without worrying about US sanctions. This is a huge development which has not fully sunk in to the general public yet. Perhaps the rest of the world will soon refuse to play ball with a the juiced up Fed as a cheating opponent. Will Asia increasingly turn away from the US capital markets, spending its hard earned reserves elsewhere? I sure as hell would.
3) Agricultural commodities. The price of domestic Corn & Wheat are already at or near all time highs. A devalued USD caused by excessive money printing increases the cost of imported foodstuffs as well. QE3 will only make matters worse. Again, not a good look for a consumption based economy.
4) Much of the recent social upheaval / military conflicts in MENA, have at their roots the caustic effect of high food & oil prices in the region. The US open ended QE policy is exporting inflation, and therefore misery to many impoverished parts of the world. Will the continued instability in the area rapidly lead to even larger major military conflicts which we can already ill afford, not to mention the ominous oil price spike that would ensue?
5) The last thing that Europe needs right now is a weaker USD. Germany the only remaining ezone economic engine will suffer significantly, as their exports become less competitive vis a vis the US. The poor pathetic periphery counties will have zero chance to compete at all. While the ECB's printing money ability has increased within the past year, they don't have the same structural capacity as the USA to do so. Ben's destruction of the USD will adversely affect Chinese exports as well. We could soon see a collective Japanese / Chinese / European intervention in the currency markets buying up the USD to counter the effects of QE3, and this could quickly descend into Jim Rickard's dreaded currency wars.
6) ZIRP forever. Are we not penalizing all savers by keeping rates so low for so long, and thus keeping the money they would have earned in their savings accounts from ever entering the real economy? And won't inflation and a weaker dollar further erode their purchasing power? Ben's policy hurts most retired folks living off a fixed income, and all who have a conservatively allocated retirement account they are counting on for future living expenses. Also, anyone who buys insurance, will now have to pay higher rates because insurance companies can't make money on their premiums anymore. Again not too cool for a consumption based economy.
7) Every municipality, town, city and state that consistently adds to their conservative Government bond holdings, will now earn less income from those fiscally prudent investment portfolios. The Fed's forever ZIRP policy is now effectively forcing comptrollers of already dangerously over leveraged fiscal budget balance sheet all over the country to take on even more risk, by shepherding them towards a questionable search for higher yields. Sounds dicey to me at best.
8) QE does little to promote job growth. QE1 cost $1. 7 trillion. QE2 cost $600 billion. Using Bernanke's math, it cost the Fed $2. 3 trillion to create two million jobs. The average annual salary in the USA for 2010 was $41, 674. By the math given to us by Bernanke himself, each job created by QE has cost the Fed $1, 150, 000. Doesn't seem to be very cost effective. Can't we figure out a better way to spend the Nation's limited financial resources. Is bailing out a busted bloated banking system all that matters in the world! Where is the outrage?
9) Effect on the Federal deficit. The continued unabashed monetization of debt actually encourages the fiscal cliff to become the greatest divide. Why would the easy money law makers be induced to significantly cut Governement spending if they are not penalized for further borrowing. Giving too much candy to a baby is usually not a good thing. Money for nothing and your chicks for free, is that the new American way?
10) The wealth effect. The Bernanke puts way too much emphasis on the positive impact of a "feel good" consumer. He has directly mentioned the stock market & consumer sentiment as very important drivers of further economic growth. Does he not realize that most people actually don't own any stocks, other than a 401K, which cannot be touched until retirement. The average consumer uses regular savings to make additional discretionary purchases, not 401K gains. By keeping rates near zero, their meager savings returns are not even keeping up with real inflation, which is much higher than he admits to begin with. Not to mention that real wages have been staganant for decades now. Dr. Feelgood has it backwards, the man on main street feels mainly the pain of QE, and not the gain.
11) QE3 and home prices. You would have to draw the 10-year yield down close to zero in order to get more people then are currently refinancing to refi again. This further MBS purchasing program by the Fed will only bring in a handful of new refinancings for the banks, and if you were looking to buy a home, you still have the same problem of selling your current residence because you owe more then its worth. This means you need to qualify for a new loan with your old mortgage counting as reoccurring debt. Not many can do this. As far as new home buyers go, interest rate levels on mortgages are not the problem, they are already at historic lows. This Mortgage purchase program announced as part of QE3 has much more to do with the Fed buying the MBS from Fannie and Freddie, because no one else will want to touch these zombies once the draw down requirements are imposed on the Federally chartered mortgage finance companies after the 1st of the new year. I'm afraid there is no housing boost news here at all, just more duct tape & baling wire.
12) QE3 Inflation acceleration. Unlike the mega yet sterilized bond buying announced by ECB, the FED's reckless QE3 to infinity program does not mention anything about sterilization. This implies that there is no promise to contain the newly minted money via sterilization operations whatsoever, as was the case with QE1, QE2, and all other previous mortgage security purchases, instead it appears that the fubar fabricated funds will free flow directly into the economy, on a potential unlimited basis. $85 billion created per month out of thin air, $40 billion of which are perpetual unsterilized high octane fuel injections into an energetic economic engine is simply mortifying monster truck madness. This drastically increases the immediate dangers of an inflationary inferno flame out.
13) Effect on future US interest rates. Here is where I believe we may see an immediate and very lethal blow back. If we are to assume that this new QE to infinity policy will quickly ignite new growth / jobs for the economy as advertised, it will also inevitably put upward price pressure on non-discretionary essentials such as food and energy, which have clearly shown their propensity to move up in tandem along side every previous QE operation. This real inflation felt at the ground level will not only reduce direct consumption by the cash strapped classes, but it will also force the cash flush classes away from low interest earning financial accounts of all kinds, and into existing hard non producing assets of every kind (commodities, PM, art, land, real-estate). Furthermore, prudent investors will soon understand that most corporate earnings suffer mightily from inflation, and thus will stay away from equities at these elevated levels. The elite financial institutions will face a double wammy here; not only will they lose straight low end deposit savers, but they will also suffer massive equity & bond account draw downs from the more affluent. At the end of the day, if they are going to keep excessive capital flight from accelerating, they will have no choice but to raise rates of return on funds deposited with them.
Higher rates are just what the Bernanke was trying to avoid! Get ready for a midair mid flight stall into a deadly death spiral captain Ben, you have clipped your own wings. We are heading straight into an inflationary depression storm of epic intensity. Inflation in the things we require, and deflation on the things we already own. The greed trap has been hatched from the heavens above, same as it ever was.
Up until now, the stock market has enjoyed the free QE bus ride no questions asked, however when the prosperous peeps are surprisingly startled by the tremendous thundering QE3 tailpipe backfire blast, they will quickly realize that the vehicle is running on nothing but fumes, and will all jump off at once before it runs out of regular real gas. Be sure to be the first ones out before the passengers crash the plexiglass doors. [snip]
These last few years of near-zero real interest rates seemed kinda strange but I didn't really give a shit. But, now that I'm retired, it kind of sucks. I'd like to annuitize maybe 20% of my portfolio because I don't have much Social Security, but the annuity factors are very low. I do think I will borrow a bunch of money that I don't really need, though. I borrowed $15k and I might borrow another $35k. That's as opposed to selling stocks and bonds to live off of. I've been getting offers of 2-2. 5% from Amex and shit (that's the effective annual rate) and you could get arbitrage with AA corporate bonds at that point, let alone equities. Of course the offers are only for a year or eighteen months but it's better than nothing. I don't think these credit card companies have figured out I'm not working any more.
These last few years of near-zero real interest rates seemed kinda strange but I didn't really give a shit. But, now that I'm retired, it kind of sucks. I'd like to annuitize maybe 20% of my portfolio because I don't have much Social Security, but the annuity factors are very low. I do think I will borrow a bunch of money that I don't really need, though. I borrowed $15k and I might borrow another $35k. That's as opposed to selling stocks and bonds to live off of. I've been getting offers of 2-2. 5% from Amex and shit (that's the effective annual rate) and you could get arbitrage with AA corporate bonds at that point, let alone equities. Of course the offers are only for a year or eighteen months but it's better than nothing. I don't think these credit card companies have figured out I'm not working any more.Dickhead, rather than annuitize 20% of your portfolio, you might consider oil royalty trusts. They would give you a better yield than an annuity and you would be investing in energy. If the stock market tanked, the share price would drop, but the dividends should up pretty well. Your arbitrage idea is only safe if the bonds are the same term as the cc loan. Otherwise, you are taking a huge risk that the interest will shoot up and tank the bond price.
Regarding the CC companies, I had a friend who burned out and dropped out. The cc companies would still send him applications and he would list his income as. 0- or na. They still sent him cards. He lived off the cards for years and paid monthly payments on the old cards with new ones. Did I mention he was formerly a bankruptcy attorney. The cc companies deserved the screwing they got when he filed bankruptcy.
Dickhead, rather than annuitize 20% of your portfolio, you might consider oil royalty trusts. They would give you a better yield than an annuity and you would be investing in energy. If the stock market tanked, the share price would drop, but the dividends should up pretty well.Dccpa, You probably already know this, but Dickhead may not. Dickhead is as financially literate as we are though (modest aren't I?) so would understand the following.
This is not a situation where you want to be blindly purchasing yield. You must be careful. Read the 10-K. Check the reserves and the PV10% value (before tax net present value of the estimated cash flows from the trust's proved reserves, using average oil and gas prices for the preceding year). Compare the PV10% value to the market capitalization, taking into account the oil and gas prices used to determine PV10%. See what price hedges they've had in effect and take that into account when you look at historical income. And, most importantly, take into account when / if the trust terminates. A number terminate after they produce a fixed number of barrels or cubic feet equivalent.
Dccpa, You probably already know this, but Dickhead may not. Dickhead is as financially literate as we are though (modest aren't I?) so would understand the following.
This is not a situation where you want to be blindly purchasing yield. You must be careful. Read the 10-K. Check the reserves and the PV10% value (before tax net present value of the estimated cash flows from the trust's proved reserves, using average oil and gas prices for the preceding year). Compare the PV10% value to the market capitalization, taking into account the oil and gas prices used to determine PV10. See what price hedges they've had in effect and take that into account when you look at historical income. And, most importantly, take into account when / if the trust terminates. A number terminate after they produce a fixed number of barrels or cubic feet equivalent.Tiny I agree. Also you need to know the mix of oil & gas. And with the 15% foreign tax withholding on most distributions, retirement accounts are at a disadvantage. I believe the Canadian trusts have been converted to Corporations. While the conversion reduced the yields, but they are still pretty good.
I believe the Canadian trusts have been converted to Corporations. While the conversion reduced the yields, but they are still pretty good.Dccpa, Agreed. I haven't bought any Canadian oil and gas companies, but a number do pay good dividends. The USA oil and gas independents, on the other hand, are like rats on a treadmill. They reinvest everything they make and don't produce free cash flow or pay decent dividends.
Your arbitrage idea is only safe if the bonds are the same term as the cc loan. Otherwise, you are taking a huge risk that the interest will shoot up and tank the bond price.Right, but what you want to match the term with is the duration and not the maturity date. I should make it clear I'm talking about a bond mutual fund (so no 10-k to read although I am an expert at that) with a duration close to the time to expiration of the loan. Of course, with coupon rates as low as they are, maturity and duration are very close to each other.
I don't view an oil royalty trust as a close substitute for a fixed annuity, by any means, but in any case I already have a few percentage points of my portfolio in natural gas royalties. They are just slightly more stable than oil royalties, during most periods.
Punter 127
09-27-12, 06:34
I'm thinking if Greece exits the euro then the dollar will strengthen against the euro and I will go to Spain again and fuck some hookers in Estark 92 and in the lower rent apartments in Fuengirola[snip].
Yes sir Mr. Dickhead, I'm keeping an eye on Spain as well. [snip]
Spanish civil war has started.
Spain is about to implode, will Franco re-emerge?You guys might want to rethink that Spain thingy, or pack some riot gear. LOL
Big Boss Man
10-05-12, 13:48
I am frustrated this morning because I read three different articles that Obama mischaracterizes Romney's proposed tax policy. If Romney would just lay out the plan then I would know what I have to do to lower my tax bite. One line of Obama's from the debate that resonated with me was something like that Romney's tax plan is so good that they cannot tell the middle class about it. Most likely scenario in my mind is that Romney reduces mortgage interest deduction and begins to tax my medical benefit as well as increasing the social security tax (or simply return to 6. 8% rate).100 percent certain Obama raises my taxes. Usually I try to defer all income. This year I think will recognize income before I have too. Pay more taxes than I have to but accelerate purchases of a new car and maybe do some home remodeling. Anybody have keener sense of this thing than I do?
Big Boss Man, I think Obama will win, and the composition of the House and Senate will be about like they are now. If Romney wins and can get his agenda (including cost cuts) through, you shouldn't see your taxes go up a lot, unless your income is high and you take extensive advantage of loopholes. Yes, if you're a hedge fund manager whose performance fees are taxed at 15% or an oil operator who gets percentage depletion, you've got a problem. Otherwise I wouldn't worry. Irregardless, the one move you could make if Romney wins is to try to move Schedule A deductions into 2012, in case he puts a cap, $17,000 or $25,000 or whatever, on deductions. Charitable deductions come to mind as something where you'd have control over timing. Actually Obama provided indications he'd like to limit charitable contributions . I think Obama would be likely to limit deductions on Schedule A too.
I would not worry about Schedule C or business expenses if Romney is elected, unless they're loopholes. Actually I would delay business expenses until 2013, expecting an Obama win and higher tax rates. If we go over the fiscal tax, everyone will pay higher taxes from 1/1/2013. If we don't, I still expect Obama to raise taxes on the majority of Americans in the years to come, because he can't come close to financing his agenda just from people who make over $200,000.
Anybody making over $200,000 might be wise to sell any positions that are fully valued and in which they have good capital gains. I'm doing that. I figure federal capital gains taxes are going to 18.8% or 23.8%, depending on whether the Bush rates are extended. Irregardless the Obamacare tax kicks in. I'm actually selling interests in several small businesses, having weighed 15% federal tax this year on capital gains against 40%+ federal taxes in years to come from the income streams. Selling out now makes sense if I can get a good price. (Take that Esten, et al. Yes, higher taxes really do make a difference in people's willingness to invest and create jobs.) And I've gone a step further. I'm worried about the signs of class warfare coming from Obama, Reid, etc, so I've got my citizenship in the Commonwealth of Dominica and a house in Costa Rica in case the shit really hits the fan. Call me paranoid or foolish or whatever, but Jews in Germany in the 1930's would have been wise to have done something similar when Hitler started singling them out.
In the longer term, if there are Democratic majorities going forward or if the Tea Party movement doesn't gain traction, expect taxes to go up a lot on everyone in order to pay for the increasing cost of entitlements, etc. Then the best strategy is to spend your money on hookers, booze, whatever. See Jackson's parable from a few months ago, about the ant and the grasshopper. Spend like there's no tomorrow, because if you're responsible and save and invest you're going to get screwed. Be a grasshopper.
Big Boss Man
10-05-12, 17:55
If you think about it Romney already gave me his personal answer on his 2010 return. By not declaring all of his charitable deductions he accelerated his income into 2010. Now I believe he has his charitable deduction carry forward that will be more valuable in future years. Otherwise why not take all the deductions that you are entitled to? It is my opinion that Romney thinks taxes are going to rise by his personal actions. It might be wise to follow his example.
Big Boss Man
10-05-12, 18:43
Big Boss Man, I think Obama will win, and the composition of the House and Senate will be about like they are now. If Romney wins and can get his agenda (including cost cuts) through, you shouldn't see your taxes go up a lot, unless your income is high and you take extensive advantage of loopholes. Yes, if you're a hedge fund manager whose performance fees are taxed at 15% or an oil operator who gets percentage depletion, you've got a problem. Otherwise I wouldn't worry. Irregardless, the one move you could make if Romney wins is to try to move Schedule A deductions into 2012, in case he puts a cap, $17,000 or $25,000 or whatever, on deductions. Charitable deductions come to mind as something where you'd have control over timing. Actually Obama provided indications he'd like to limit charitable contributions . I think Obama would be likely to limit deductions on Schedule A too.For Californians making a decent income a 17k or 25K limit on Schedule A deductions is a major problem. You probably hit that with just State income and property tax.
Probably if you are low to mid six figure income you are in the danger zone of seeing raised taxes under either administration. However if they can really get the deficit down I think my investments will do better than what PIMCO, for example, is calling the "New Normal."
I like your posts Tiny12. You have a sober way at looking at all sides of a position.
Member #2041
10-05-12, 18:54
I am frustrated this morning because I read three different articles that Obama mischaracterizes Romney's proposed tax policy. If Romney would just lay out the plan then I would know what I have to do to lower my tax bite. One line of Obama's from the debate that resonated with me was something like that Romney's tax plan is so good that they cannot tell the middle class about it. Most likely scenario in my mind is that Romney reduces mortgage interest deduction and begins to tax my medical benefit as well as increasing the social security tax (or simply return to 6. 8% rate).100 percent certain Obama raises my taxes. Usually I try to defer all income. This year I think will recognize income before I have too. Pay more taxes than I have to but accelerate purchases of a new car and maybe do some home remodeling. Anybody have keener sense of this thing than I do?How do you know that Obama has mischaracterized Romney's tax plan, given Romney's refusal to actually mention most of the specific deductions he'd remove? Obama didn't make up those claims about Romney's probable tax plans, they came from a non-partisan (admittedly, this is debatable) analysis that tried to make the numbers work, and they extrapolated the most plausible set of assumptions that actually yielded the results that Romney was claiming.
Accelerating recognition of capital gains has some appeal, as does moving away from dividend paying stocks towards lower payouts. I have a plan for what I'm going to do if the black guy gets in and another one for if the white guy gets in, and another one if the white guy gets in with enough of a majority to really do anything. Itemizers may want to accelerate medical expenses as the 7. 5% threshold is moving to 10. Also, for moderate income folks, note that the means testing in the health care law makes Roth IRAs relatively more advantageous to be holding going forward, but at the same time putting the annual contribution in the standard IRA will give a bigger health care subsidies.
Thanks for the kind words Big Boss Man.
Big Boss Man
10-06-12, 13:20
Despite the potential increase in taxes, I still think dividend growth stocks are a good neighborhood. There is a whole cult of dividend growth investors at Seekingalpha. Com. They shout everyone down who offers a counter opinion. I am not that radical. I use the ETFs VIG and SCHD as a holding place until I get a specific stock idea. Merrill Lynch runs a quality dividend portfolio and it does well or at least holds up in recessionary environments.
It is time to think about these things. You guys are an unexpected pleasure to read on the same site with all the name calling and the pimp / tout melodrama.
THank you,
Bob
Despite the potential increase in taxes, I still think dividend growth stocks are a good neighborhood. There is a whole cult of dividend growth investors at Seekingalpha. Com. They shout everyone down who offers a counter opinion. I am not that radical. I use the ETFs VIG and SCHD as a holding place until I get a specific stock idea. Merrill Lynch runs a quality dividend portfolio and it does well or at least holds up in recessionary environments.I would also be wanting such dividend paying stocks as I did choose to hold to be in tax deferred accounts even more so than I wanted them to be there before. Right now the risk-free rate is so low I am not sure the Gordon model would behave normally. You could say the same for beta, for that matter, although I don't believe in beta (capital asset pricing model). Risk-free T-bills and gold are starting to look like Giffen goods.
There's a good chance the maximum tax on dividends won't actually go to 43.4%, as it's supposed to on January 1 under current law. Senate Democrats voted for a 23.8% rate earlier this year. A 43.4% federal tax on dividends on top of a 35% federal tax rate on corporate income would be bad for a host of reasons, so hopefully reason will prevail.
I'm a big believer in dividends too, so much so that I'm one of the few around that actually still uses something like Dickhead's Gordon model, where you estimate the present value of future dividends to be paid by a company. There are a couple of studies out that show historically stocks that pay better dividends also appreciate in share price more, which is the opposite of what you'd expect. They weeded out companies like utilities and MLP's that distribute most of their income in dividends though -- they're a special case.
Really big dividend advocates should read Modigliani and Miller on the irrelevance of dividends. The double taxation is a good point but the only ultimate solution to that is to dispense with the fiction of a 'corporate' income tax, given that corporations cannot be taxed, only individuals. But what I get out of Modigliani and Miller is this: They conclude that absent taxes and transaction costs, dividend policy is irrelevant to stockholder wealth. Now obviously there are transaction costs (although they have gone way, way down since M & M) and taxes. So, when the capital gains rate and the ordinary income rate are the same, I have no planning opportunity. When they are not, I may behave differently. But I am not trying to speculate what will happen to the tax laws. I am just trying to consider all the possibilities so that I can adjust quickly and appropriately once the rates solidify. I'm in a pretty good tax position so I'm more concerned with how the ultimate policy will effect the overall economy. Capital gains are going to affect me more than ordinary rates going forward and I would say Obama will be more prone to raise capital gains rates (or better said, let them go back to where they were before he ever was heard of) while keeping the ordinary rates in the lower two brackets, or maybe even three brackets. What Romney would be more prone to do is unknown, of course, given the top-secret nature of his tax plan.
I'm convinced, and believe there are some studies to back me up, that companies that pay good dividends AND have good cash flow on average produce superior returns to shareholders. That's not phrased very well, but by "good cash flow", what I mean is they're not borrowing money or issuing shares to be able to pay dividends, and they're not paying one-off dividends.
Yes, a company that can produce good return on invested capital (ROIC) and that has good opportunities for growth should reinvest most of its free cash flow in the business, instead of distributing dividends. But what if ROIC is mediocre? The shareholders are going to be better off if earnings are distributed in dividends, which they can re-invest in better opportunities, instead of being used for boondoggles and management's empire-building. So payment of dividends can be an indication that management has best interests of the shareholders in mind.
You could argue that a stock that will never pay a dividend is nothing more than a piece of paper. What separates an investment in stocks from an investment in something like gold is that the stock produces an income stream. I'll admit though that saying a stock is a piece of a business and should be valued as such is a better argument. But not if in the end some company that never paid a dividend ends up with either lots of cash that it will never distribute to shareholders or a much larger business that's no longer profitable.
Studies are mixed and the effects aren't robust across long time frames. I believe in the maturation theory of dividends, which is not inconsistent with your "pay divs if ROIC is mediocre" scenario. A new firm faces a high cost of capital and frequently has a high debt ratio. So it makes sense not to return scarce cash to shareholders. Once profitability has been established, leverage is reduced, and credit has been established, it might makes sense to start paying a dividend. Or, per M & M, it might not matter, or, per me, depending on the tax laws it might or might not be good, and should be compared with the effects of a buyback. One point of view I have heard is that it then becomes a niche market where some investors want current cash flow and some don't, so firms develop a variety of dividend payout policies to cater to the niches. I'd say that while paying a dividend might indicate they have the best interests of the shareholders in mind, if doing a stock repurchase turns the shareholders' ordinary income into capital gains, that needs to be done instead. Of course that raises your ROE cosmetically as well, in case anyone is dumb enough to fall for that.
One thing that is for sure true is that periodic cash payments are going to reduce the volatility of the stock, ceteris paribus. That implies a higher compound return if the cash payments are reinvested, for any given set of mean returns (Modern Portfolio Theory). But, for many investors, they want the periodic cash payment as income and not to reinvest. So, I doubt that effect would be as robust in practice. The flip side of this is that any increase in the compound return could be more than offset by the acceleration of the tax effect. It's relatively easy to analyze the total return to the shareholder: the capital appreciation during the period plus any cash payment received (I. E, dividend). However, and importantly, it's virtually impossible the overall returns to a firm's entire collection of shareholders, because they all have different effective tax brackets. That is a real problem with studies that say things like "growth outperformed value" or "high payout stocks outperformed low payout stocks," among other comparisons. The studies normally assume some kind of average taxpayer or average tax rate, often without much justification for the rate chosen.
Another issue is reversion to the mean. A bunch of studies come out saying that, for example, high dividend yield stocks outperformed low dividend yield stocks over X period. So then everybody runs out and buys high yield stocks, driving up their price and thus driving down their yield. The Dogs of the Dow is a good example of this phenomenon.
Thanks for your posts Dickhead. You've changed my way of thinking a bit, and the way I screen stocks, if I can figure out a way to quantitatively screen buybacks. I hadn't thought through the tax considerations the way you have.
Thanks for your posts Dickhead. You've changed my way of thinking a bit, and the way I screen stocks, if I can figure out a way to quantitatively screen buybacks. I hadn't thought through the tax considerations the way you have.I believe a study was done on buybacks and the majority of buyback stock was been used to provide employees with shares. Ergo, the end result over time was there was no real reduction in shares. It was 5-10 years ago that I read this study and it may not be valid in the current market environment.
Accelerating recognition of capital gains has some appeal, as does moving away from dividend paying stocks towards lower payouts. I have a plan for what I'm going to do if the black guy gets in and another one for if the white guy gets in, and another one if the white guy gets in with enough of a majority to really do anything. Itemizers may want to accelerate medical expenses as the 7. 5% threshold is moving to 10. Also, for moderate income folks, note that the means testing in the health care law makes Roth IRAs relatively more advantageous to be holding going forward, but at the same time putting the annual contribution in the standard IRA will give a bigger health care subsidies.Dickhead, I am curious as to your investment scenarios depending upon the election outcome. I see USD confidence crumbling faster under Obama than Romney, but I don't see that either can change the USD endgame.
Thanks for your posts Dickhead. You've changed my way of thinking a bit, and the way I screen stocks, if I can figure out a way to quantitatively screen buybacks. I hadn't thought through the tax considerations the way you have.I forget who said this but "You can only eat inflation-adjusted, after tax Returns."
Dickhead, I am curious as to your investment scenarios depending upon the election outcome. I see USD confidence crumbling faster under Obama than Romney, but I don't see that either can change the USD endgame.Given that I am a passive investor, I don't have investment scenarios, only tax scenarios. I've laid out some of what I think. Romney will be more likely to close personal itemized deduction loopholes while Obama will be more likely to focus on Schedule C loopholes. Marginal tax rates on ordinary income for higher income people will be higher under Obama. That won't affect me because I have a "ROB" portfolio. ROB meaning return of basis, or most of my taxes were already paid or avoided (avoided a lot by living overseas for eight years). I think Obama has more the view that all income sources should be taxed more equally, while Romney subscribes to the (scantily supported) theory that low capital gains rates stimulate business investment. What the US needs to stimulate investment is a higher savings rate and some basic fucking discipline on a PERSONAL level. No matter which guy gets elected, individual US citizens need to start producing more than they consume. One thing that is crimping the savings rate is all these young people graduating with all this student loan debt. Raising the interest rate on that was stupid. Obviously the current non-interest rates are a deterrent to savings. But it's mostly an immoral and unsustainable level of personal greed that is causing the low savings rate, which is a huge contributor to the growing deficit.
Romney might mouth fiscal conservatism but might either expand military spending or else cut it less than Obama would, which would be expansionary. But if he eliminates multiple government agencies (a pipe dream given the bicameral legislature) that will be contractionary. Obama might mouth the need for continued expansionary policies to nurture the fragile recovery, but might cut defense / military spending and that would be contractionary. I don't factor those things into my investment strategy, though.
Macroeconomically I see continued low interest rates, continued very slow growth but not another USA recession, low inflation due to the European situation partially offset by continued high energy prices, and a counterproductive increase in protectionism. Productivity gains will offset some of this because we will see another round of technology improvements, particularly in logistics. Traditional production jobs will continue to leave the USA but that is both a threat and an opportunity. Obama will do a better job of handling that issue than Romney will.
I believe a study was done on buybacks and the majority of buyback stock was been used to provide employees with shares. Ergo, the end result over time was there was no real reduction in shares. It was 5-10 years ago that I read this study and it may not be valid in the current market environment.True. Many firms had stated goals of zero dilution (I. E. 100% offset of issued shares with treasury repurchases). Once the accounting rules were changed to require the expensing of stock options (issued 2004 and effective in the two following years depending on company size, I think) , their usage declined and so that study would need to be re-visited. More recent buybacks have been aimed more at reducing outstanding shares to juice EPS.
Regarding what Tiny said about cash flows, a lot of ratios can be computed using operating cash flows in place of net income. However, and interestingly, the accounting rules prohibit presenting cash flow per share on the face of the income statement. Another thing to keep in mind is that multiple studies have shown that net income is a superior predictor of long-term performance, as compared to cash flows. It's also a superior predictor of bankruptcy once you get to time frames beyond a couple of years.
Regarding what Tiny said about cash flows, a lot of ratios can be computed using operating cash flows in place of net income. However, and interestingly, the accounting rules prohibit presenting cash flow per share on the face of the income statement. Another thing to keep in mind is that multiple studies have shown that net income is a superior predictor of long-term performance, as compared to cash flows. It's also a superior predictor of bankruptcy once you get to time frames beyond a couple of years.I should have said "free cash flow." The point was that if a company is having to borrow money or issue shares to pay dividends instead of paying them out of free cash flow, that's not a good sign. I agree that net income should be far superior to operating cash flow as an empirical predictor of long term performance for a group of companies. However, if you're looking at a particular company, taking a close look at cash flows (operating, investing and financing) is important IMHO. And a forecast of free cash flow should be better to use for valuation of a business or stock than a forecast of net income, except that it's easier to forecast net income.
Certainly you don't want to use leverage to pay your dividend (although paying a dividend increases your leverage). I very seldom see that. I have seen more cases of borrowing / refinancing / not repaying to do buybacks. That's somewhat less risky because you aren't committed to spending X amount of money. When I look at the cash flow statement (which is really not a cash flow statement due to the use of the "indirect method"), the first two things I look at are the ratio of operating cash flow to net income and the ratio of net purchases of property, plant and equipment to depreciation expense. In each case I like to see around 1. 3 or 1. 4. I can pretty much see what happened in the financing section just by looking at the balance sheet.
But all that stuff is a waste of time because active investors can't beat passive investors by enough in the long run to cover the increased taxes and trading costs. That I firmly believe. And they sure as hell can't beat them by enough if you consider the opportunity cost of time spent. So I use ETFs and index funds, maintain a target asset allocation, re-balance quarterly, and try to do it in a tax-efficient manner. Because, I also believe that the primary determinant of long-run investment returns is asset allocation and not security selection. I believe both of these things because the vast preponderance of quality research supports them.
What I want as investor is index funds that are equally weighted instead of capitalization weighted. Too bad there aren't any. Merrill Lynch's HOLDRs come close but there are other issues with that product.
Because, I also believe that the primary determinant of long-run investment returns is asset allocation and not security selection. I believe both of these things because the vast preponderance of quality research supports them.I used to believe in asset allocation, then the banksters started fricking with the market on a massive scale. Now, I don't really consider any sector safe any more. Even though I prefer your method, I don't think passive investing will work over the next few years. Now I actively manage based upon market sectors and timing and I focus on the commodity sector. For instance, when silver started breaking out in August, I put half of my cash into PSLV@12-12. 15. I had intended to put all my cash into the PSLV trade, but the expected retracements to test support levels never happened. Now that silver has failed to break through $35. 50 on multiple occasions, I am planning on cashing out those positions tomorrow at a gain of hopefully 15-17%. I should have sold Friday afternoon, but I was busy with some IRS audits. Maybe silver breaks through $35.50 after I sell and I look like an idiot. But the commercial traders have again amassed large short positions. That situation usually leads to silver dropping in price.
The sales proceeds go back into cash until silver either breaks down or breaks out to the upside. I have come to the conclusion that if I wait until the odds are heavily stacked in my favor, I only need to trade 1-3 times a year. In this situation, silver had entered into its seasonally strong period of time, the commercials traders had a low level of short positions and and the chart patterns were similar to fall of 2010, when silver started a rally of almost 200% over the next 8 months.
I used to believe in asset allocation, then the banksters started fricking with the market on a massive scale. Now, I don't really consider any sector safe any more. Even though I prefer your method, I don't think passive investing will work over the next few years. Now I actively manage based upon market sectors and timing and I focus on the commodity sector. For instance, when silver started breaking out in August, I put half of my cash into PSLV@12-12. 15. I had intended to put all my cash into the PSLV trade, but the expected retracements to test support levels never happened. Now that silver has failed to break through $35. 50 on multiple occasions, I am planning on cashing out those positions tomorrow at a gain of hopefully 15-17. I should have sold Friday afternoon, but I was busy with some IRS audits. Maybe silver breaks through $35. 50 after I sell and I look like an idiot. But the commercial traders have again amassed large short positions. That situation usually leads to silver dropping in price.
The sales proceeds go back into cash until silver either breaks down or breaks out to the upside. I have come to the conclusion that if I wait until the odds are heavily stacked in my favor, I only need to trade 1-3 times a year. In this situation, silver had entered into its seasonally strong period of time, the commercials traders had a low level of short positions and and the chart patterns were similar to fall of 2010, when silver started a rally of almost 200% over the next 8 months.In other words, technical analysis and charting. Never has worked over any long period and never will. But good luck anyway, especially with the leverage.
For instance, when silver started breaking out in August, I put half of my cash into PSLV@12-12. 15. I had intended to put all my cash into the PSLV trade, but the expected retracements to test support levels never happened. Now that silver has failed to break through $35. 50 on multiple occasions, I am planning on cashing out those positions tomorrow at a gain of hopefully 15-17%.Not to pile on, and a short term 15% to 17% profit is great, but hopefully you're somewhat diversified. I'm reluctant to put over 7% or 8% of my net worth into any one position, and usually know what I'm buying better than whoever is selling it to me. I don't really understand precious metals, but suspect caution is merited. You may be right in your view of inflation, the value of the dollar, etc. On the other hand, if we go through a repeat of the early 1980's, anyone who has most of their net worth in precious metals will be hit very hard. During our lifetimes, precious metal prices in inflation adjusted terms have only been as high or higher than they are now during 1979 to 1981. I did by the way look at your source for alternate figures of inflation, and even went so far as to compare prices of individual items in 1981 to what they are today. He way overstates inflation, although I believe you're right, the government understates it.
Dickhead. The charting part is TA, but the commercial short positions and seasonal tendencies go under what I would call common sense. The commercial shorts can and often do control the silver market. And seasonal tendencies have to do with things like the end of harvest for Indian farmers and buying of presents for the Indian wedding season. Don't know where you got the leverage part. PSLV is a fully backed silver etf run by Sprott.
Tiny. I am mostly in precious metals. I used to diversify and asset allocate, but my areas of diversification are now limited to real estate, commodities (agriculture, energy & precious metals) and cash. If I was richer, I would also be buying collectibles, wines, etc. My concentration on the precious metals area is a personal preference based upon the historical role of gold as a store of wealth and the future role I see it playing in the post-fiat world economy. Barring a large drop in price by December, this will be the 11 or 12 straight year that gold has been up and that includes 2008. I don't believe any other investment has done that.
Don't know where you got the leverage part. PSLV is a fully backed silver etf run by Sprott.I stand corrected. I did not know there were ETFs with four letter ticker symbols so I thought you were talking about the option chain. I checked out the fund. Seems to work a bit like a closed-end mutual fund as well in that it can have discounts or premiums to NAV. Interesting vehicle. I advocate 2 or 3% of a fairly largely portfolio to be in something like that, in theory, but the expenses usually turn out to be too high in practice. I'm 5% in REITs which are pretty uncorrelated to either stocks or bonds but 2 or 3% of MY portfolio is not enough to get much trading economy.
One thing I will say is that worrying about domestic vs. foreign equities is almost a waste of time now, the correlations have gotten so high. I still do it because it doesn't cost me anything (that stuff is all in IRAs) to rebalance but if it did, I might not even bother. Of course, that might start to turn back the other way once Europe becomes totally Balkanized.
Or more likely, the US dollar is relatively weak. Posponed a trip to Europe from this fall to the spring. Dreaming of parity between the dollar and the euro by then. Anybody remembered the pound being weaker than the dollar a few decades ago?
http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/
Here is a graph showing the dollar versus the Euro from the day Obama was inaugurated until now. As any idiot can see, the exchange rate is basically right where it was when Obama took office. Notice I have only imbedded the link, as opposed to cutting and pasting 37 pages of drivel.
This Sprott operation has a definite lack of transparency from the point of view of a US investor. Maybe Canadians are just more trustworthy. No SEC filings, no financial information on their website. No information through Morningstar, E-Trade, or TDAmeritrade. No history of past returns on any of these sites. No fundamental information either. No info on TDAmeritrade is particularly strange since this Sprott family seems to have some connection to or affiliation with Toronto Dominion Bank. Where's the balance sheet for these metals funds?
Anyway, investing based on past performance is, well, chasing past performance.
But we should probably have an investing thread because this thread should be more macroeconomic in nature. Macroeconomic indicators appear to me to be improving, although very slowly. Maybe GDP growth of less than 1% for five more years. Maybe 8% unemployment closer to the norm, still low by world-wide standards. In a scenario like that you just have to hope for innovation and productivity gains. My fear there is that growing functional illiteracy and innumeracy coming out of the K12 system really threatens innovation and productivity growth. I hope I am wrong.
This Sprott operation has a definite lack of transparency from the point of view of a US investor.Look on sedar.com, there's no lack of transparency. This was trading at a 30% premium to NAV in January! And around 15% to 20% for much of 2011. Considering you could have bought futures contracts instead that's crazy. No criticism of Dccpa, the premium was much lower in recent months.
Very simple
Globalization created competition, and the USA is undergoing a transition period where we are no longer competitive in some areas. It did not help that we were partying and forgot to do our homework. Rapacious Big Business practices is primarily responsible for the spending and selfish culture that exist today. A few months ago, an Arizona hospital billed a patient $80, 000+ for treatment for a scorpion sting. What a sting! She was left with a $30, 000 bill after insurance deductions. I am sure that is small change for you.
Look on sedar.com, there's no lack of transparency. This was trading at a 30% premium to NAV in January! And around 15% to 20% for much of 2011. Considering you could have bought futures contracts instead that's crazy. No criticism of Dccpa, the premium was much lower in recent months.Being on sedar.com, whatever that is, is not transparency for the average investor. The average investor is going to go their website, the SEC's website, and the information available from their broker (E-Trade, etc.). There ain't shit.
Being on sedar.com, whatever that is, is not transparency for the average investor. The average investor is going to go their website, the SEC's website, and the information available from their broker (E-Trade, etc.). There ain't shit.The world doesn't revolve around the USA any more. If you want information on a Canadian equity or fund you go to sedar.
Globalization created competition, and the USA is undergoing a transition period where we are no longer competitive in some areas. It did not help that we were partying and forgot to do our homework. Rapacious Big Business practices is primarily responsible for the spending and selfish culture that exist today. A few months ago, an Arizona hospital billed a patient $80, 000+ for treatment for a scorpion sting. What a sting! She was left with a $30, 000 bill after insurance deductions. I am sure that is small change for you.Black Shirt, nonprofit hospitals do the same. It's ridiculous, and if you don't have insurance you pay a lot more than it costs the insurance company. So the market isn't working. That's what I didn't like about Obamacare. It did very little to bring down costs and make medical care an efficient market. You have posted in the past on the irresponsibility of individuals, that they take on too much debt and spend too much, which I agree 100% with. People in the USA make more than in any large country in the world yet still live pay check to pay check. Why is it that someone in China or Thailand is able to save 20% of what he makes, when he's only making a small % of the average USA individual?
I can't argue that rapacious big business practices don't play a part (like promoting no money down mortgages and useless stuff for the consumer), but it's the politicians and individuals that are primarily responsible. The politicians set the rules and provide the framework for their enforcement. Individuals elect the politicians and should have enough sense to not buy things they can't afford.
I disagree with you that we're a selfish culture. From what I've read, we're one of the most generous in the world.
The world doesn't revolve around the USA any more. If you want information on a Canadian equity or fund you go to sedar.So that is like www.sec.gov Except it's privatized. Got it.
This Sprott operation has a definite lack of transparency from the point of view of a US investor. Maybe Canadians are just more trustworthy. No SEC filings, no financial information on their website. No information through Morningstar, E-Trade, or TDAmeritrade. No history of past returns on any of these sites. No fundamental information either. No info on TDAmeritrade is particularly strange since this Sprott family seems to have some connection to or affiliation with Toronto Dominion Bank. Where's the balance sheet for these metals funds?
Anyway, investing based on past performance is, well, chasing past performance.
But we should probably have an investing thread because this thread should be more macroeconomic in nature. Macroeconomic indicators appear to me to be improving, although very slowly. Maybe GDP growth of less than 1% for five more years. Maybe 8% unemployment closer to the norm, still low by world-wide standards. In a scenario like that you just have to hope for innovation and productivity gains. My fear there is that growing functional illiteracy and innumeracy coming out of the K12 system really threatens innovation and productivity growth. I hope I am wrong.Not sure where you are getting your information. Here is the web site for PSLV (silver) and PHYS (gold). Click on one of the two choices and choose financial reports.
http://sprottphysicalbullion.com/
Here is link to SEC filings for PSLV:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/pslv/sec-filings
Here is the link to the main Sprott web site:
http://sprott.com/
If you are trying to research through TD, good luck. My access is through the professional side and it is probably just as bad as the individual side. When they switched to the new platform, I stopped doing any research through the TD site.
Look on sedar.com, there's no lack of transparency. This was trading at a 30% premium to NAV in January! And around 15% to 20% for much of 2011. Considering you could have bought futures contracts instead that's crazy. No criticism of Dccpa, the premium was much lower in recent months.In the past I avoided futures because I cannot buy the same for my clients. Now I avoid futures because I am a sane person who understands the massive theft occuring at places like Sentinel, PFG Best and MF Global.
The potential premium is one of the main reasons I purchased PLSV and the other reason is convertibility. Someone who has enough shares can trade in those shares for the physical silver (pslv) or gold (phys). If I am correct about the future performance of gold and silver, then physical metal will go to a premium and so should the shares of these mutual fund trusts. The PSLV premium during the silver spike last year is just an example. My previous silver vehicle was SIVR. When Sprott did another offering of PSLV this summer, the premium plunged to around 3. I swapped out of SIVR into PSLV and hope that PSLV once again gets a large premium. We shall see.
BTW. I didn't sell out this morning. Silver dropped to the first support area last night and I am in a wait and see mode right now.
Globalization created competition, and the USA is undergoing a transition period where we are no longer competitive in some areas. It did not help that we were partying and forgot to do our homework. Rapacious Big Business practices is primarily responsible for the spending and selfish culture that exist today. A few months ago, an Arizona hospital billed a patient $80, 000+ for treatment for a scorpion sting. What a sting! She was left with a $30, 000 bill after insurance deductions. I am sure that is small change for you.Not sure what this extreme example says about anything other than our FDA is protecting us to death and never use out-of-network medical services. The drug is widely available in Mexico for $100 / vial, but the FDA required expensive trials that jacked the US price up to over $3800 / vial. The hospital added another $70, 000 and the out-of-network deductible was $30, 000. She is not going to have to pay anywhere near $30, 000.
http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-hospitals-80-000-bill-stings-worse-scorpion-213605531--abc-news-health.html
Not sure where you are getting your information. Here is the web site for PSLV (silver) and PHYS (gold). Click on one of the two choices and choose financial reports.
http://sprottphysicalbullion.com/
Here is link to SEC filings for PSLV:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/pslv/sec-filings
Here is the link to the main Sprott web site:
http://sprott.com/
If you are trying to research through TD, good luck. My access is through the professional side and it is probably just as bad as the individual side. When they switched to the new platform, I stopped doing any research through the TD site.Dude. I proceeded as would any average investor. Sprott's site is the first place I went. There is no financial information there, nor any clue as how to get it. How TF would anyone know to go to "sprottphysicalbullion" when most people can't even spell bullion? And why would I look on NASDAQ's site and not the SEC? Why would I know this is Canadian if I am an average investor? This is what I am saying. I'm not personally interested in bullion but if I were, I would be frustrated and would give up on this investment.
[QUOTE=Dccpa; 427383]Not sure what this extreme example says about anything other than our FDA is protecting us to death and never use out-of-network medical services. The drug is widely available in Mexico for $100 / vial, but the FDA required expensive trials that jacked the US price up to over $3800 / vial. The hospital added another $70, 000 and the out-of-network deductible was $30, 000. She is not going to have to pay anywhere near $30, 000.
http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-hospitals-80-000-bill-stings-worse-scorpion-213605531--abc-news-health.html
[/QU.
That's why it made the news. The publicity put their outrageous practices to shame, and the only reason why they are willing to back down.
Bloomberg News' Catherine Arnst wrote in 2009 (a bit outdated),"Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the US in 2007. 78% of these filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60. 3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid."
Doesn't that say it all?
I apologized for being out of topic.
Dude. I proceeded as would any average investor. Sprott's site is the first place I went. There is no financial information there, nor any clue as how to get it. How TF would anyone know to go to "sprottphysicalbullion" when most people can't even spell bullion? And why would I look on NASDAQ's site and not the SEC? Why would I know this is Canadian if I am an average investor? This is what I am saying. I'm not personally interested in bullion but if I were, I would be frustrated and would give up on this investment.Dickhead, I know you are a very intelligent investor, but it took me all of 60 seconds to find the links I posted. Limiting yourself to the crappy TD platform is the problem. The information below is for general information to anyone interested:
The links were found using dogpile. Com. Dogpile is a search engine of search engines.
For researching US investments, the first place I look for information is the finance section of yahoo.
For researching Canadian stocks I start with TMX. Com.
TD has a crappy research platform.
For most superficial information, I use yahoo finance
Big Boss Man
10-17-12, 01:09
Watched the Presidential debates tonight. Wow Tiny you nailed the 25K limit on Schedule A deductions in Romney's tax plan. You must have inside information.
So that is like.
www.sec.gov
Except it's privatized. Got it.Still recovering from tax prep season, but I was looking over the older posts.
Dickhead, I used your SEC link and typed in Sprott. A lot of filing came up, including some for PSLV.
I clicked on one of the PSLV links and the the following links appeared:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001494728&owner=include&count=40&hidefilings=0
Still recovering from tax prep season, but I was looking over the older posts.
Dickhead, I used your SEC link and typed in Sprott. A lot of filing came up, including some for PSLV.
I clicked on one of the PSLV links and the the following links appeared:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001494728&owner=include&count=40&hidefilings=0I used the ticker symbol you posted and not the name. I still don't see why their website doesn't have links to their filings.
Dickhead, I was going to send this via PM but then thought that your answer to the second question might have some relevance to someone thinking about opening an interest bearing account in a non-US currency. As you know USA interest rates are very low right now.
In your last post in the election thread, what does "and 8 of the 11 signs (12 years so 11 changes)" mean? Are these inflection points in (change in EUR GDP) / (change in USD GDP) versus forex?
Also, I don't have an answer for your quiz on the elections page, when foreign money comes in to take advantage of higher interest rates, what does that do to interest rates. What's the answer? Thanks
8 out of 11 times the % change in the GDP had the opposite sign from the % change in the exchange rate (growth in GDP meant weakening currency or vice versa). The answer to the quiz is, interest rates go down. Higher interest rates attract foreign capital but then the supply of foreign capital drives the interest rate back down. So, differences in real interest rates get arbitraged away. That happens pretty fast. The financial or non-current accounts are much more elastic than the current accounts, where imports and exports are slow to respond to relative price changes (because you need to shift factors of production; that is particularly tough if the economy is near full employment). So that means that if interest arbitrage is covered in the forward currency market, the difference in real interest rates will be equal to the forward discount on the foreign currency and if it isn't the arbs move in to correct it.
Now go look at why Democrats are better for the economy, that I just posted in the election section. Politics and economics cannot be separated.
The European Spring looks like it's on it's way, can the American Spring be far behind?
As we look at moderate, bipartisan solutions to the deficit, I see a couple of proposals that seem reasonable at first glance. One is the idea of a means-tested $500 annual Medicare deductible. The other pertains to the whole $250k per year Obama threshold vs. Boehner view that no increase in marginal rate is acceptable. Currently the threshold to hit the top rate is $388, 350. Both parties could save face by leaving the top rate the same 35% but lowering the threshold to $250k. The absolute cap on itemized deductions, which I think was proposed to be $25, 000, has some appeal as well.
Because I am a moderate I also look at supply side arguments. Lately I have been interested in revisiting for example Say's Law and the quantity theory of money. The quantity theory of money says MV = PQ where:
M is the money supply which back then was gold and / or silver.
V is the velocity of money, or how many times the same unit of currency can be used in one given period, typically a year.
P is the general price level, and
Q is the output or GDP.
The laissez-faire or classic assumption is that V is fixed. Research doesn't support that and so that might be why the current extremely "accommodative" monetary policy is not working; you can't force people to spend if they are pessimistic so the V goes down as the M goes up. I read today that the Fed intends to keep short term rates near zero into 2015? What? Continued extremely low real interest rates encourage stupid projects.
Call me a reactionary, but how do you reduce government spending without increasing domestic unemployment? You reduce foreign aid. Sorry about that. I am actually pretty sick of foreign aid. There is too much corruption involved. Let's pursue some more isolationist policies in that regard and then later IF things get better we can worry about all these other motherfuckers.
Mountaineer
11-15-12, 06:07
As we look at moderate, bipartisan solutions to the deficit, I see a couple of proposals that seem reasonable at first glance. One is the idea of a means-tested $500 annual Medicare deductible. The other pertains to the whole $250k per year Obama threshold vs. Boehner view that no increase in marginal rate is acceptable. Currently the threshold to hit the top rate is $388, 350. Both parties could save face by leaving the top rate the same 35% but lowering the threshold to $250k. The absolute cap on itemized deductions, which I think was proposed to be $25, 000, has some appeal as well.
Because I am a moderate I also look at supply side arguments. Lately I have been interested in revisiting for example Say's Law and the quantity theory of money. The quantity theory of money says MV = PQ where:
M is the money supply which back then was gold and / or silver.
V is the velocity of money, or how many times the same unit of currency can be used in one given period, typically a year.
P is the general price level, and.
Q is the output or GDP.
The laissez-faire or classic assumption is that V is fixed. Research doesn't support that and so that might be why the current extremely "accommodative" monetary policy is not working; you can't force people to spend if they are pessimistic so the V goes down as the M goes up. I read today that the Fed intends to keep short term rates near zero into 2015? What? Continued extremely low real interest rates encourage stupid projects.
Call me a reactionary, but how do you reduce government spending without increasing domestic unemployment? You reduce foreign aid. Sorry about that. I am actually pretty sick of foreign aid. There is too much corruption involved. Let's pursue some more isolationist policies in that regard and then later IF things get better we can worry about all these other motherfuckers.These billions in foreign aid are draining us dry with little or no results. We give money to Egypt and they still hate out guts. It doesn't improve anything either. Why not keep this money at home, spending it on improving intrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, subways) and put a lot of people back to work in the meantime while we are improving everything back at home?
Member #3320
11-19-12, 23:20
Have been reading / researching about the US tax system for past 100 years.
In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER.
In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959. And continued to rise for decades. On January 1st. 2013 it will be 12. 4.
Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy. And they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, i.e. Plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.
Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.
In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17. 7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus / minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.
Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board. From 0% to over 90% Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.
Rates go up, rates go down. It doesn't affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.
On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what a friend of mine, a top US tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.
The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%
Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43. 4. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.
Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market's expectations about future earnings. And over the long run, future dividends.
As a result of this tax policy, many investorswho own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.
This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It's as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying 'PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE. ' It's genius.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.
All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.
Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it's imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend all US mongers, consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.
Sinking titanic sinks further!
Suerte.
Silver Star
11-19-12, 23:54
Have been reading / researching about the US tax system for past 100 years.
In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER.
In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959. And continued to rise for decades. On January 1st. 2013 it will be 12. 4.
Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy. And they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, I. E. Plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.
Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.
In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17. 7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus / minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.
Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board. From 0% to over 90% Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.
Rates go up, rates go down. It doesn't affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.
On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what a friend of mine, a top US tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.
The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%
Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43. 4. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.
Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market's expectations about future earnings. And over the long run, future dividends.
As a result of this tax policy, many investorswho own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.
This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It's as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying 'PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE. ' It's genius.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.
All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.
Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it's imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend all US mongers, consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.
Sinking titanic sinks further!
Suerte.Nice post! Big Government requires big taxes.
SnakeOilSales
11-20-12, 00:52
Have been reading / researching about the US tax system for past 100 years.
In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER.
In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959. And continued to rise for decades. On January 1st. 2013 it will be 12. 4.
Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy. And they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, I. E. Plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.
Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.
In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17. 7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus / minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.
Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board. From 0% to over 90% Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.
Rates go up, rates go down. It doesn't affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.
On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what a friend of mine, a top US tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.
The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%
Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43. 4. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.
Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market's expectations about future earnings. And over the long run, future dividends.
As a result of this tax policy, many investorswho own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.
This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It's as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying 'PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE. ' It's genius.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.
All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.
Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it's imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend all US mongers, consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.
Sinking titanic sinks further!
Suerte.Raising taxes on dividends and short-term capital gains in the current economic environment and under today's monetary policy will NOT have a downward effect on the prices of equities in the United States. With interest rates at or near zero for the foreseeable future there is simply NO WHERE ELSE to put your money and hope to get any kind of decent return except for equities. Reform of the tax code is needed as a few "millionaire" tax brackets should be created for those earning $1-$5 million, $10 million+, etc, something like 38-40% for incomes at that level. People earning $400k are not rich and should not be paying 39. 6.
Silver Star
11-20-12, 01:21
Raising taxes on dividends and short-term capital gains in the current economic environment and under today's monetary policy will NOT have a downward effect on the prices of equities in the United States. With interest rates at or near zero for the foreseeable future there is simply NO WHERE ELSE to put your money and hope to get any kind of decent return except for equities. Reform of the tax code is needed as a few "millionaire" tax brackets should be created for those earning $1-$5 million, $10 million+, etc, something like 38-40% for incomes at that level. People earning $400k are not rich and should not be paying 39. 6.Easy for you to play with other peoples money!
Easy for you to play with other peoples money!So what exactly is YOUR plan for addressing the deficit? Run your mouth? We get that you are anti-everything but do you have any ideas, at all?
Silver Star
11-20-12, 13:06
So what exactly is YOUR plan for addressing the deficit? Run your mouth? We get that you are anti-everything but do you have any ideas, at all?Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)
Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)Easy, but lacking in substance and reeking of 1929.
Silver Star
11-20-12, 15:11
Easy, but lacking in substance and reeking of 1929.Reeking of March 1789!
Member #2041
11-20-12, 15:45
Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)So you are OK with the next great depression that would result from that?
The simple fact is, affluent Americans pay FAR LESS in taxes than they have during any prior period of prosperity over the past 65 years. It's utterly absurd to suggest that they can't handle a bit more of their share of the burden.
Oh, and to answer Jackson's question about how much tax burden the wealthiest 10% of Americans should incur, I'd suggest somewhere between what they paid during the Reagan years, and the Clinton years, as a percentage of their overall slice of the income pie, since those were two of the most prosperous periods in the history of the U.S, so clearly, that burden quite obviously did not act as a break on American prosperity.
BTW, I do agree that dramatic spending cuts in the Military portion of the U.S. budget would be highly beneficial, long term.
Does anyone of you patrons know the true thinking in BsAS on this potentially catastrophic financial issue? Will Kristina take the 'nuclear-option' and refuse to post the $1. 3 Billion required to appeal the US court decision, forcing a default on the bond payments due on 15 December? The US Court of Appeals decision notwithstanding, the negative ramifications are endless – an authentic mess!
I believe Argentina will default on this payment because of some type of misplaced national pride. Following that, I would expect more seizures of Argentine ships, planes, goods, etc. Immediately after this default I think you will be able to get 8 pesos to the dollar.
SnakeOilSales
11-28-12, 22:00
The US 2nd Circuit of Appeals has ruled late this afternoon in Argentina's favor, meaning Judge Griesa ruling is suspended until at least February 27, 2013 at which time Argentina will have to present oral arguments before the court.
SOS, that's good to hear. I'll have to get my hands and that more recent ruling. An extension until February could allow Argentina to make the 15 December payment, thus relieving a lot of anxiety, in the short-term.
Unfortunately, I too foresee an eventual default resulting in devaluation, and even more local hardship as the perceived pariah gets further banned from capital markets. The seizure of more 'worthless' Argentina assets seems like a waste of time, but maybe designed merely to embarrass and humiliate the government. Besides, I always figured the Sovereign Immunities Act eliminated the possibility.
On the upside, however, the impact of the court's decision related to 'pari passu' on faltering Euro country sovereign debt is advantageous for my personal swap strategy there.
So you are OK with the next great depression that would result from that?
The simple fact is, affluent Americans pay FAR LESS in taxes than they have during any prior period of prosperity over the past 65 years. It's utterly absurd to suggest that they can't handle a bit more of their share of the burden.
Oh, and to answer Jackson's question about how much tax burden the wealthiest 10% of Americans should incur, I'd suggest somewhere between what they paid during the Reagan years, and the Clinton years, as a percentage of their overall slice of the income pie, since those were two of the most prosperous periods in the history of the U. S, so clearly, that burden quite obviously did not act as a break on American prosperity.
BTW, I do agree that dramatic spending cuts in the Military portion of the USA budget would be highly beneficial, long term.Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back
Member #2041
11-29-12, 01:58
Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back
It's laughable to suggest that those wars were a function of the cuts to the Defense budget. They were a function of the Soviet Union trying to match our global influence, something they've given up on. Of course you need to combine the increases in tax rates at the top with spending cuts. It would certainly be reasonable to cut the USA defense budget by at least 10% - and most of that could be done just by bringing down the nuclear arsenal some more, cutting a handful of our overseas bases, and pulling out of Afghanistan. 5% could be knocked out of most entitlement programs with not much more than streamlining the most obvious bureaucracy - Without even hitting any real benefits that are being given to constituents. If capital gains rates were returned to 20%, and the top marginal rates were upped to 36 and 39% again, in conjunction with the aforementioned cuts, you'd have a real legitimate start to getting things back on track. Then, if you wanted to make SS solvent, just eliminate the cap on taxes for wages above $110K.
The Chinese carrier is lower tech than what we were using in the 1960s, and their fighter jets are in line with what we had in the 1980s. We're 30+ years ahead of them.
The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence - and once we are immutably achieving that - in 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.
Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my backI know that we have Sylvester, Arnold, Bruce, Matt, Samuel, even Clint to draw back on.
The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence. And once we are immutably achieving that. In 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.I agree with most of what you wrote about defense, but not the above.
The USA could be a net exporter of energy in 12 to 15 years. But it won't happen, because the Democrats that will control the federal government will make it more difficult to use coal and nuclear, more difficult to explore for oil and gas on federal lands and offshore, more difficult to use hydraulic fracturing, and possibly more difficult to export LNG.
We will not be self sufficient again in oil under any reasonable scenario. It's very difficult to understand why Obama prevented or delayed the Keystone pipeline, and provided the Canadians with an incentive to construct a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast, where their oil can be exported to China and other Asian countries. If there were only the Keystone pipeline, we'd have a captive source of supply from immense reserves. Somewhere between the 2nd and 4th largest in the world, depending on which list you look at. We should have been doing everything we could to encourage the Keystone pipeline, and discourage sales to China. If we were successful, then we might be in a position, as you say, to ratchet down our defense expenditures in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, though, Obama sees this issue as something that helps Democrats politically. I'm assuming he's not stupid enough to really believe that the pipeline isn't in the best interests of the USA.
We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.
Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.
We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.
Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.
Dickhead, renewables won't provide a large percentage of our energy needs during our lifetimes. They won't be economic, we can't afford them. One or two hundred years from now they probably will, especially if you consider nuclear breeder reactors as renewable.
Actually I do agree that other energy sources are preferable to coal, but the rapid switch away from coal mandated by Obama will be difficult, expensive and unnecessary. Nuclear, and hydraulic fracturing (necessary to produce our natural gas resources), aren't that risky compared to coal. They provide energy with low or no carbon emissions.
Nuclear shouldn't be an issue right now, if we're talking about building new reactors. It's cheaper to produce energy from natural gas. New nuclear facilities only become viable if you've got paranoia about fracking and a zero tolerance policy for carbon emissions.
With respect to natural gas, the price is right. It sells for over $12/MMBTU in Asia versus less than $4/MMBTU in the USA. We're sitting on enough, if roadblocks aren't put in the way of hydraulic fracturing, than you can export, still provide cheap feedstock/energy to domestic users and have enough so that it won't run out before you do have economic renewables or can afford to pay out the ass to get energy from coal in an economically friendly way, many years from now.
Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be necessary to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.
Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be necessary to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.I actually know something about that. You live in an exceptional area. The formations there that are producing the gas are also aquifers for drinking water. It's possible fracking should be banned where you live. It's 100% true that if it's not banned, the chemicals used in the fracking fluid should be heavily regulated, to protect drinking water. For most of the gas shales, and even for the coal seams and tight sands farther south and southeast of where you live, contaminating potable water supplies isn't a significant risk. As you say coal is worse. If you rule out coal and natural gas nukes are all that's left.
Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more.s.In particular please reference Wyoming and Montana deposits that lie very close to the surface. Quite a sweeping statement you have made regarding coal dude. Please show me what it is based upon. Toymann
Ps. You might as well also support your statement about franking in the balkin formation. Where do you live? If it a problem there then why do it? I am guessing you have no supporting information pertaining to North Dakota and you are just talking out of your ass. Please prove me wrong!
Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.
You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.
Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.
You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.Global brush strokes like the statement from professor Dick usually entertain me, but in our current political environment they kinda make me sick! More political based than factual based. The professor should know better but me thinks his real agenda is starting to poke its ugly head out of the ground. I am sure that Dick's next lecture will be all about global warming. LOL. Happy mongering all. Toymann
First let me state that I am in no way saying cease all coal mining immediately. I am saying there are many disadvantages to coal and we should move away from it. Even the industry itself, in the form of the World Coal Association, concedes,"Coal mining, particularly surface mining, requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed. This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local biodiversity."
So let me cite, first, a sort of beginner's version of the issues:
http://www.environment911.org/160.12_Environmental_Effects_of_Coal_Mining
Then I will follow with a very well-known study that got bipartisan funding:
www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf
And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/mining-coal-mounting-costs-life-cycle-consequences-coal
Finally, the following article is quite well-sourced:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coal
First let me state that I am in no way saying cease all coal mining immediately. I am saying there are many disadvantages to coal and we should move away from it. Even the industry itself, in the form of the World Coal Association, concedes,"Coal mining, particularly surface mining, requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed. This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local biodiversity."
So let me cite, first, a sort of beginner's version of the issues:
http://www.environment911.org/160.12_Environmental_Effects_of_Coal_Mining
Then I will follow with a very well-known study that got bipartisan funding:
www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf
And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/mining-coal-mounting-costs-life-cycle-consequences-coal
Finally, the following article is quite well-sourced:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coalI will be happy to review your references and respond. That said, you're couched comment about " temporarily disturbing" the soil kinda sends a message. What the heck do you think mining is professor? Does common sense even exist in your world. Please review google map coordinates for Gillette Wyoming and Colstrip Montana. I am betting that you are not aware, as a result of years of government regulation, that once the coal has been extracted from the ground that the site must be almost immediately returned to its original condition, right down to the number of sage bushes, once the mining has been completed. Right down to the number of sage bushes! Talk about over regulation professor! You wonder why we are dependent on foreign sources of energy. I repeat, right down to number of sage bushes! Of course, in your silly academic world I suppose you would be in favor of mining as long as it didn't "temporarily disturb the soil". Although I graduated from the equivalent of an Ivy League university I am guessing that your cv might not look that impressive, but I am just speculating and may be wrong. LMAO!"Temporarily disturbing" the soil. That is just too damn funny. Monger on Dick. Toymann.
Ps. What a revelation Dick, the world coal association conceded that mining temporarily disturbs the earth. Wow, I am speechless! LMAO dude! That considered in itself, I reconsider, you are right, coal is bad! Windmills are good! What was I thinking!
Your references 1, 2 and 4 are nothing but political spew cites without any engineering or scientific basis what so ever! Come on, we are all not that stupid.
Your Harvard reference is laughable at best, totally agenda driven without any scientific credibility at all. Check out the About Us tab on the site.
About Us.
The Center was founded in 1996 to study and promote a wider understanding of the human health consequences of global environmental change.
The Center is an official Collaborating Center of the U. N. Environmental Programme, and is one of the most trusted sources of information on this subject in the world.
Just ask them, they are totally on point! IALOTFLMAO! Your research paper gets a D minus at best professor. Sadly, you need to at least find some scientific basis for your statement. Your basis for your opinion is just as hollow and lacking in science as our current presidents position. Totally, political driven without even the slightest founding in science or engineering. Your agenda is now out for all to see brother. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found WANTING! Better luck next time and thanks for playing. If I have hurt your feeling please forgive me. I am under strict orders from Esten and the newly reformed politically correct El Jeffe to neither offend nor insult board members. Please take my banter with a grain of salt! I apologize in advance if I have offended any liberal betchs sensibilities! Monger on Dichhead. Toymann.
Ps. As we say when playing bridge, never send a boy to do a mans job! LOL!
Member #2041
12-01-12, 15:59
And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:If that's true, it explains an awful lot about Toymann's internet persona. But it doesn't explain how the Admissions office in Cambridge let their standards slip so far.
If that's true, it explains an awful lot about Toymann's internet persona. But it doesn't explain how the Admissions office in Cambridge let their standards slip so far.I believe Toymann referenced going to another school below, not Harvard.
Aside from tman though, out of curiosity what do you mean re: being a Harvard grad explaining a lot about his internet persona? Are you saying for the most part or all Harvard grads are as Tman's internet persona portrays?
Member #2041
12-01-12, 22:55
I believe Toymann referenced going to another school below, not Harvard.
Aside from tman though, out of curiosity what do you mean re: being a Harvard grad explaining a lot about his internet persona? Are you saying for the most part or all Harvard grads are as Tman's internet persona portrays?Certainly not ALL Harvard grads, no. Just an unusually large percentage of them out of the overall population of Harvard grads. For example, Mitt Romney, but not Barack Obama.
In the interest of disclosure, I am a Brown and University of Chicago graduate. One might even contend that as such, I am biased against Harvard grads. If so, it would only be because I have interacted with an inordinate number of them.
I was joking about Toymann being a Harvard grad. There are many ways to get an education and fucking a lot of hookers from an early age is certainly one of them so that is what I did and it may indeed have left some gaps in my own education, similar to being sick the day they covered that subject. Now, as far as world economics go, you have two tools: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Libs want a contractionary fiscal policy and Dems say that will lead to recession right now. What specific steps do you fucks, I mean folks, want to take?
Member #2041
12-01-12, 23:25
Now, as far as world economics go, you have two tools: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Libs want a contractionary fiscal policy and Dems say that will lead to recession right now. What specific steps do you fucks, I mean folks, want to take?I actually took a stab at this in post #94 of this thread. I was surprised to see that all of the discussion which followed stemmed from my almost offhand comment about heading toward energy independence down the road, and nothing else I mentioned garnered any comments at all.
I know. Republicans' and Libertarians' grasp of basic economics is just embarrassing on any level. It's like you took a whole bunch of home schooled Mormons and put them in charge of the economy. All I can do about that is apologize.
Member #2041
12-02-12, 00:12
But here's an interesting bit of data about the economic disaster Obama inherited, and the recovery ever since:
You will note that the major inflection point in the graph and article below corresponds to the implementation of Obama's stimulus package in Q1 of 2009:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/record-corporate-profits/
Apparently, Obama has failed at socialism and communism, but is doing pretty well at capitalism.
You know a lot more about economics than I do. So explain something. Are / were Milton Friedman, Glenn Hubbard, Martin Feldstein, and half of economists working in the private sector idiots? Was Alan Greenspan (Libertarian/Republican economist) a big believer in contractionary monetary policy? Have Republican presidents and Congresses since World War II starved the economy during recessions? Do Libertarians, who are about ½ of 1% of the electorate, count for anything in the USA? Was a short term increase in profits of corporations and decrease in unemployment worth trillions in additional debt? Do scale and efficiency count for anything, or if you see a problem (like recession) do you just throw as much money as you can at it and hope some will stick, with little thought to how you're going to pay it back?
Member #2041
12-02-12, 17:41
You know a lot more about economics than I do. So explain something. Are / were Milton Friedman, Glenn Hubbard, Martin Feldstein, and half of economists working in the private sector idiots? Was Alan Greenspan (Libertarian/Republican economist) a big believer in contractionary monetary policy? Have Republican presidents and Congresses since World War II starved the economy during recessions? Do Libertarians, who are about ½ of 1% of the electorate, count for anything in the USA? Was a short term increase in profits of corporations and decrease in unemployment worth trillions in additional debt? Do scale and efficiency count for anything, or if you see a problem (like recession) do you just throw as much money as you can at it and hope some will stick, with little thought to how you're going to pay it back?Well, Milton Friedman has been dead since before the financial crisis occurred, so we don't know what he would have thought about it. But much of what happened from late 2006 through early 2009 was stuff that he believed would not have happened as markets self-corrected. So, while he was not an idiot, significant aspects of his world view were discredited during the last financial collapse. And Greenspan proved to be much more of a political hack. Going against quite a bit of what he supposedly stood for to pump up the economy while he was at the helm at the Fed. But the fact is, as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, we DO see Republicans pushing to starve the economy during recessions. Which, for some reason, they never have done when there has been a Republican President - but they did it when Clinton was President, and have done it under Obama - of course they did not do it when George W. Bush was in the White House, nor did they do it under Reagan or Bush Sr.
Supply side policies, normally associated with Republicans and with tenets such as Say's Law and the quantity theory of money, will work eventually. It is just that Keynesian or demand side policies, associated with Democrats, work faster. So the essential difference is what happens in the meantime. It seems to me that Republicans are kind of mean and don't give a shit about two or three years of privation while their 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' policies go to work at the speed of frozen snot. There is ample research that agrees with what I just said, and I've posted much of this evidence, including conclusive proof that real GDP is higher and unemployment is lower under Democratic regimes. Libertarians won't be taken seriously until and unless their economic 'policy' becomes much more clearly defined. Specifically, if you want to advocate a flat tax you had better come up with a rate.
Supply side policies, normally associated with Republicans and with tenets such as Say's Law and the quantity theory of money, will work eventually. It is just that Keynesian or demand side policies, associated with Democrats, work faster. So the essential difference is what happens in the meantime. It seems to me that Republicans are kind of mean and don't give a shit about two or three years of privation while their 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' policies go to work at the speed of frozen snot.Again, I don't know much about economics. But didn't Keynes believe lower tax rates would stimulate demand? And, like some Republicans, didn't he believe the national debt should be actually paid down when times are reasonably good, instead of always running budget deficits? So why is Keynes' name associated with Democrats instead of Republicans?
There is ample research that agrees with what I just said, and I've posted much of this evidence, including conclusive proof that real GDP is higher and unemployment is lower under Democratic regimes.You posted evidence that they were higher/lower, not that they are higher/lower. And you didn't show evidence for cause and effect.
Libertarians won't be taken seriously until and unless their economic 'policy' becomes much more clearly defined. Specifically, if you want to advocate a flat tax you had better come up with a rate.I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system. It would be better for most if tax reform occurred, to lower rates, improve economic efficiency, and decrease compliance burdens, and eliminate certain deductions and credits, regardless of whether that meant that the wealthy would pay a somewhat larger share of the income tax burden. Or, better yet, replace the income tax with a progressive sales or consumption tax. Jackson has pointed out that a large exemption or payment to those with lower incomes would make it progressive. Because of your posts I believe the corporate tax rate should be "0". And I believe the tax rate on unincorporated businesses should be reduced. But it's all a mute point though isn't it. None of this will happen. And the USA will become like France, then like Greece.
You seem cynical now but I am optimistic. I see the precursors for a nice, long, slow, gradual expansion. Free trade is prevailing over protectionism with some stupid exceptions. Lots of money is sloshing around so anyone with a remotely good idea should be able to find some. We got past the tenth anniversary of the WTC bombing without another similarly terrible incident and people have recovered somewhat from that, psychologically. Obama is a moderate Democrat and not a fire breather. The health care plan is undoubtedly inflationary but I can't see much inflation kicking in for two or three years given the excess reserves in the banking system. Also, if the next few decades have slightly slower growth, that would not be surprising because of the aging of the population and issues related to that. The birth rate has stabilized so that effect should be temporary. It could be that real GDP will grow more slowly in the future because of things like universal health care coverage, but that's okay. We can all still relatively prosper under these conditions. Improved health care coverage will lead to a more productive workforce and better economic growth but that could take a generation or so. In fact, I would take a generational or 25-30 year approach to economic planning instead of this idea of planning to get re-elected. I would vote for the party with a very long range plan as opposed to Band-Aids.
It's a legitimate criticism that I never show cause and effect, but I addressed this earlier: I don't care. I would care if we had five data points but we have way more than that and at the end of the day we need to deal with effect no matter what the cause. Also I should have used the present perfect and not the simple present tense. The GDP and unemployment results have been superior under the Democrats. Call me crazy but with so much history I think they will be better under the Dems going forward as well.
Keynes is associated with Democrats cuz he was an adviser to FDR, and because he advocated expansionary fiscal policy to combat recessions, which Republicans just refuse to do. And although there are slight and ephemeral differences between Republicans and Libertarians, the Libertarian position is also for extreme fiscal contraction even though that was exactly what Hoover did in 1930.
But I do have to say, I don't care if tax rates go up down or sideways, I wanna know what the fuck they will be, preferably very soon. Regarding the corporate tax rate, whether it is 0% or 100% the net result is the same. Never lose sight of the fact that with flexible exchange rates you can run a deficit for a long time if your securities are preferred over others. England did this for about 200 years by issuing "consols."
My 2nd visit to my birthplace this year, and the city that I left to seek my fortune in the Promise land, USA. It's economic success and political stability is a modern miracle. It's skyline is featured all over the world. It is now the 4th most expensive city in the world for expatriates. Despite my nostalgic and enjoyment for Singapore, I could not get out fast enough.
But it was not the prices that drove me out. It was because I felt it in my bones that Singapore had sold it's soul to the devil, money. Yes, of course, money is important, let's not bs about that. But the top 20% (?) is enjoying the boom, while the man in the street is just struggling to make ends meet. As one taxi driver put it, the only thing that one can still do & enjoy in Singapore is fart. Once renown as a free port and a shopping mecca, the sales tax means you can find most things cheaper elsewhere. And despite the fact that around 22% of it's population are foreign workers that earns much lower wages than it's citizens, it does not seem to be able to put a dent on prices. The first words a newborn utters is,"discount".
I should have seen coming, I had seen a similar cultural change when Las Vegas went corporate. But it was still a big shock what has happen the last 5 years. Singapore is basically now Singapore Incoporated.
On the home front, as of today, my humble mutual funds have enjoyed about 11% since June this year, despite the Dow Jones losing close to 800 points after the elections. Maybe, I can plan a round the world trip for 2013 now.
That Black Shirt fellow is a damn nice guy.
Gauntlet77
12-13-12, 17:39
My 2nd visit to my birthplace this year, and the city that I left to seek my fortune in the Promise land, USA. It's economic success and political stability is a modern miracle. It's skyline is featured all over the world. It is now the 4th most expensive city in the world for expatriates. Despite my nostalgic and enjoyment for Singapore, I could not get out fast enough.
But it was not the prices that drove me out. It was because I felt it in my bones that Singapore had sold it's soul to the devil, money. Yes, of course, money is important, let's not bs about that. But the top 20% (?) is enjoying the boom, while the man in the street is just struggling to make ends meet. As one taxi driver put it, the only thing that one can still do & enjoy in Singapore is fart. Once renown as a free port and a shopping mecca, the sales tax means you can find most things cheaper elsewhere. And despite the fact that around 22% of it's population are foreign workers that earns much lower wages than it's citizens, it does not seem to be able to put a dent on prices. The first words a newborn utters is,"discount".
I should have seen coming, I had seen a similar cultural change when Las Vegas went corporate. But it was still a big shock what has happen the last 5 years. Singapore is basically now Singapore Incoporated.
On the home front, as of today, my humble mutual funds have enjoyed about 11% since June this year, despite the Dow Jones losing close to 800 points after the elections. Maybe, I can plan a round the world trip for 2013 now.Up 11% huh? Cash them in and do it NOW! It's all over but the cryin' for the US economy (and world economy for that matter). Have a look at the Baltic Dry Index for chrissakes.
Up 11% huh? Cash them in and do it NOW! It's all over but the cryin' for the US economy (and world economy for that matter). Have a look at the Baltic Dry Index for chrissakes.Playing blackjack here, will wait for the fiscal cliff resolutions. Either way, not the end of the world for me. Are you hunkering down? Lately, been hearing from the CEOs, that they are in SET mode, ready to roll. Higher taxes, they say, no big deal.
As the details of the latest mass killings emerge, we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this point? And can we pretend that we are not part of the problem? If I was to advise the Jihadists, it would be "why bother?" We are more than capable of self destruction from within.
I apologize for the downer blog but it is connected to life-styles & economics. You will see this type of behavior coming to China, Singapore, etc. In the future.
Gauntlet77
12-15-12, 13:29
As the details of the latest mass killings emerge, we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this point? And can we pretend that we are not part of the problem? If I was to advise the Jihadists, it would be "why bother?" We are more than capable of self destruction from within.
I apologize for the downer blog but it is connected to life-styles & economics. You will see this type of behavior coming to China, Singapore, etc. In the future.Read up on SSRI's.
Read up on SSRI's.Its the nutjobs and the culture that produces them, not the meds.
Gauntlet77
12-17-12, 14:25
Its the nutjobs and the culture that produces them, not the meds.Http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school
Gauntlet77
12-17-12, 16:05
Its the nutjobs and the culture that produces them, not the meds.
Http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/17/true-source-of-random-shootings-and-violence-is-often-psychotropic-drugs/
Http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school
Trust you haven't been involved in prescribing these "meds", especially to kids.Thanks for linking this school shooting to the other cases, and highlighting our over-medicated society. You are a very knowlegable guy. So now, the question is why are we leading the world in these categories. Is it because of ifestyles, culture, economics?
Http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school
Trust you haven't been involved in prescribing these "meds", especially to kids.There seems to be some confusion about the phrases "the facts" versus "some website." I have news for you: everything you read on the internet is not true. In fact the website you link to used to be run by a bunch of lawyers. I guess the main one is dead now, though. So that is a start.
I loathe 1. Big Pharma and I loathe 2. Bloodsucking manipulative lawyers. The SSRI debate has been going on for years and there has been no convincing evidence (untainted by someone's agenda-see #s 1. And 2.) that I have seen that has led me to believe that SSRIs play any significant role whatsoever in suicides / homicides.
I don't prescribe meds as I ain't allowed. And yes, there is IMHO a huge over prescribing of meds in the states (and I am sure elsewhere) for all kinds of ailments, both real and imagined (to both kids and adults). Its a huge, confusing landscape made tremendously more murkier by the perverse efforts of #s 1. And #2.
My 2 cents.
Gauntlet77
12-18-12, 01:34
Thanks for linking this school shooting to the other cases, and highlighting our over-medicated society. You are a very knowlegable guy. So now, the question is why are we leading the world in these categories. Is it because of ifestyles, culture, economics?Beats me, I am just a Canadian observer. It's your country, perhaps you have an explanation?
Gauntlet77
12-18-12, 01:44
There seems to be some confusion about the phrases "the facts" versus "some website." I have news for you: everything you read on the internet is not true. In fact the website you link to used to be run by a bunch of lawyers. I guess the main one is dead now, though. So that is a start.What is that? A threat? LOL.
I can't believe that you are wishing for the death of yours truly.
With all due respect, may I ask that you express yourself more clearly?
That would be a start.
So now, the question is why are we leading the world in these categories. Is it because of ifestyles, culture, economics?Disaffected and severely alienated young men. Which is bad enough, in and of itself, made so much worse by a culture (and in many respects a world) that celebrates, via an increasingly omnipresent mass media- physical appeal and "success" in its many forms. Add in an underlying, if not often very overt, damning of those who don't measure up. A damning by peers and much of the culture at large. Take your alienated young man who harbors extreme rage, add in a heightened level of narcissism and desire to "make a mark" and you have the formula for a problem.
In the states they get a gun. In other parts of the world they strap on a vest loaded with explosives. Kill yourself and take others with you. Two peas in the same pod.
Disaffected and severely alienated young men. Which is bad enough, in and of itself, made so much worse by a culture (and in many respects a world) that celebrates, via an increasingly omnipresent mass media- physical appeal and "success" in its many forms. Add in an underlying, if not often very overt, damning of those who don't measure up. A damning by peers and much of the culture at large. Take your alienated young man who harbors extreme rage, add in a heightened level of narcissism and desire to "make a mark" and you have the formula for a problem.
In the states they get a gun. In other parts of the world they strap on a vest loaded with explosives. Kill yourself and take others with you. Two peas in the same pod.To BlackShirt, all things are political in nature, especially anything that can be interpreted leaning toward the left. Your post is spot on from where I am sitting. Very well thought out and intuitive. You must be a pro, of sorts. Well done. Happy mongering all. Toymann
Disaffected and severely alienated young men.I would add unemployed (that may be a cause of the disaffection) to DB's analysis. If they have no job, they have plenty of time on their hands to think of, and do, all the nefarious things that idle minds dream of. Before the atomic bomb, society took care of many of the disaffected, alienated, and unemployed young men by killing of them in major wars. I make no pretense of knowing how civil society is going to deal with them now that the world no longer has major wars, and modern medicine practices death control while religions fight and cultures fight birth control. Just look at who you see on each edition of the nightly news fomenting revolution, civil war, terrorism, insurrection, etc. The nationality may be different, but the young man aspect is the same. My two cents worth.
Tres3
I would add unemployed (that may be a cause of the disaffection) to DB's analysis. If they have no job, they have plenty of time on their hands to think of, and do, all the nefarious things that idle minds dream of. Before the atomic bomb, society took care of many of the disaffected, alienated, and unemployed young men by killing of them in major wars. I make no pretense of knowing how civil society is going to deal with them now that the world no longer has major wars, and modern medicine practices death control while religions fight and cultures fight birth control. Just look at who you see on each edition of the nightly news fomenting revolution, civil war, terrorism, insurrection, etc. The nationality may be different, but the young man aspect is the same. My two cents worth.
Tres3Righto. As good ol' Dr. Freud noted, working is very important.
I am not so sure. A lot of these mass shooters were unemployed but even more were employed in menial jobs or careers. But if it is related to unemployment, why don't we see this shit in Europe (historically about twice the level of unemployment) or Latin America (historically about four times the level of unemployment)?
100% of all shootings involve guns so guns just possibly are part of the problem. Maybe.
I am not so sure. A lot of these mass shooters were unemployed but even more were employed in menial jobs or careers. But if it is related to unemployment, why don't we see this shit in Europe (historically about twice the level of unemployment) or Latin America (historically about four times the level of unemployment)?
100% of all shootings involve guns so guns just possibly are part of the problem. Maybe.I agree that guns, too many of them and too easy to get, are the main cause of the mass killings. This is coming from a person who owns more than ten guns, but, with the exception of an inherited revolver, they are all hunting rifles and shotguns. Granted that they can easily kill a human, but they were not intended for human death like an assault weapon. The NRA and other people can say what they want to try and convince the world that an assault weapon is nothing more than a sophisticated hunting weapon, but only the truly stupid believe that nonsense. However, unless the USA Constitution is amended, every type of firearm will be, and should be, lawfully sold in the USA. That is my two cents worth on that subject.
HOWEVER, my previous post was not attempting to address the mass killings, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. It attempted to address the turmoil that we see all over the world. I offer my speculation that we do not see Europe, or any true democracy where there is some modicum of income distribution, going through as much turmoil, because the young men of those countries (albeit many are unemployed) still hold out some hope, have an economic safety net, and still believe in the rule of law. Since WWII, we have seen numerous different guerrilla movements, coups, and fallen dictatorships throughout Latin America, so that part of the world is not immune to disaffection with government or the military.
Tres3
Rich kids and poor kids in rich schools and in poor schools have carried out these massacres and the distinguishing factor is always GUNS. Access to guns, fascination with guns, and then inappropriate use of guns. Anyone who cannot see that guns are the main problem, is part of the problem. Perhaps there is an appropriate use of guns. I just have never seen or known one. That has led me to conclude that since people seem unable to use guns appropriately, it would be appropriate to restrict people's use of guns. Fucking shoot me if you don't agree.
we do not see Europe, or any true democracy where there is some modicum of income distribution, going through as much turmoil, because the young men of those countries (albeit many are unemployed) still hold out some hope, have an economic safety net, and still believe in the rule of law. Tres3I believe you up until the bolded point. If you look at Europe over time, the rule of law has been the exception and not the rule, and so that gets us back to the economic safety net. At the end of the day, a society is going to be judged on how it treats its weakest members. A small minority of selfish, extremist cocksuckers will always disagree, and that is what is so great about free elections. Eventually these selfish cocksuckers are shown for the extremist minority they truly are.
Rich kids and poor kids in rich schools and in poor schools have carried out these massacres and the distinguishing factor is always GUNS. Access to guns, fascination with guns, and then inappropriate use of guns. Anyone who cannot see that guns are the main problem, is part of the problem. Perhaps there is an appropriate use of guns. I just have never seen or known one. That has led me to conclude that since people seem unable to use guns appropriately, it would be appropriate to restrict people's use of guns. Fucking shoot me if you don't agree.And while we are at it, let's do away with vehicles, alcoholic beverages, and the list goes on and on because we all know of the gross misuse. Let us not forget the big picture. GUNS ARE TOOLS OF FREEDOM.
Rich kids and poor kids in rich schools and in poor schools have carried out these massacres and the distinguishing factor is always GUNS. Access to guns, fascination with guns, and then inappropriate use of guns. Anyone who cannot see that guns are the main problem, is part of the problem. Perhaps there is an appropriate use of guns. I just have never seen or known one. That has led me to conclude that since people seem unable to use guns appropriately, it would be appropriate to restrict people's use of guns. Fucking shoot me if you don't agree.And while we are at it, let's do away with vehicles, alcoholic beverages, and the list goes on and on because we all know of the gross misuse. Let us not forget the big picture. GUNS ARE TOOLS OF FREEDOM.
I bet that b!tch in CT feels pretty free right now. Bought a bunch of guns, learned how to shoot them, got shot by them. Works for me.
What planet to you people live on? Yes, some day we're going to end up with European levels of unemployment among youth and rioting in the streets, because of the policies of your party. I'm a selfish extremist cocksucker who has no problems with government providing a basic safety net for people who really need it. Not wanting to work does not qualify a person as really needing it. I have no problem with government (probably local or state as the federal government is incapable of doing anything efficiently) rationalizing health care so that all are covered and it doesn't eat up 17% of GDP. I do have a problem with government providing subsidized high priced health care to mongers so they'll have enough money to travel to foreign countries and screw hookers in places like Madahos. You think somewhere between 0. 12% (Pelosi and Schumer's cutoff. $1, 000, 000 income) and 2% (Obama's $200, 000 to $250, 000 cutoff) of the population, including many successful small businesses, are going to be able to finance a $1 trillion deficit and pay for your medical care and retirement? And continue to provide the same profits to grow investment capital and businesses? After the changes that are coming down the pike in 2013 you're not going to be able to get much more out of the wealthy. And what you're getting is going to satisfy only a small part of the deficit. The USA system will be as "progressive" or more progressive than Europe, considering we have no VAT.
And while we are at it, let's do away with vehicles, alcoholic beverages, and the list goes on and on because we all know of the gross misuse. Let us not forget the big picture. GUNS ARE TOOLS OF FREEDOM.Yeah, when you stay up all night waiting for someone to come to your mansion and invade your privacy. Or.
When someone is going to carjack your hot GTO. Or.
When someone comes and squeeze your hot gf ass. Or.
When someone wants to you to give up the $20, 000 that you carry around. Or.
When the Taliban decides to invade Texas. Or?
Oh, of course, I forgot, you are a Freedom Fighter
Morgando69
12-19-12, 19:37
I think society overlooks or ignores mental health. So many of the perpetrators of these killings are nuts and afterwards everyone comes forward and says "yeah, the guy was nuts".
I am not so sure. A lot of these mass shooters were unemployed but even more were employed in menial jobs or careers. But if it is related to unemployment, why don't we see this shit in Europe (historically about twice the level of unemployment) or Latin America (historically about four times the level of unemployment)?
100% of all shootings involve guns so guns just possibly are part of the problem. Maybe.
Can only imagine what the headlines would have said if the father had an arsenal in his house with a disturbed kid."Loser father causes."
Gauntlet77
12-19-12, 21:36
Http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/17/true-source-of-random-shootings-and-violence-is-often-psychotropic-drugs/
The URL doesn't seem to be working so I'll try again.
True Source of Random Shootings and Violence is Often Psychotropic Drugs.
Young survivors of Sandy Hook massacre react to tragedy.
Quite often the true source of random mass shootings and violence, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre, is psychiatric medication which could well include Adam Lanza who was likely on meds and labeled as having a personality disorder.
By Allen L Roland.
As natural news reported yesterday ' According to ABC News, Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter, has been labeled as having a 'mental illness' and a 'personality disorder. ' These are precisely the words typically heard in a person who is being 'treated' with mind-altering psychiatric drugs. One of the most common side effects of psychiatric drugs is violent outbursts and thoughts of suicide. The Columbine High School shooters were, of course, on psychiatric drugs at the time they shot their classmates in 1999. Suicidal tendencies and violent, destructive thoughts are some of the admitted behavioral side effects of mind-altering prescription medications. '
Adam Lanza (see photo) apparently had Asperger's syndrome. There are no medications that specifically treat Asperger's syndrome. Some medications may improve specific symptoms such as anxiety, depression or hyperactivity that can occur in many children with Asperger's syndrome. Examples include drugs such as fluvoxamine (Luvox) which may be used to treat depression or to help control repetitive behaviors. Possible side effects include restlessness and agitation.
Please note that Luvox is a drug that is 8. 4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
It is estimated that at least half of all Americans who commit suicide or commit violent acts were on psychiatric drugs and there are more than 3000 deaths a month attributed to psychiatric or psychotropic drugs.
Watch The TRUE SOURCE of RANDOM & MASS SHOOTINGS and VIOLENCE and draw your own conclusions. 11 minute must see video
We have the perfect example when we take a closer look at the bagful of drugs (Care of big Pharma) that are currently being thrown at Veterans as well as their well-documented adverse effects. The US military has lost more troops to suicide than to combat for the second year in a row and a better cause versus symptom based understanding of combat-related risk factors for suicide is now critical.
A recent study published in the Public Library of Science online journal (PloS One@
www.plosone.org
) by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP@
www.ismp.org
) listed the top 31 prescription drugs that can cause violent or aggressive behavior in those consuming them. Note that Prozac, Paxil and the amphetamine drugs as well as Lariam are # 2, # 3 # 4 and #5 on the top-ten list;
10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) Pfizer's newest antidepressant (a knock-off of Effexor, note the similarity of the generic terms) that artificially stimulates both serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7. 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) An antidepressant that has marketing approval for both depression and anxiety. The drug is 8. 3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) – A so-called 'selective' serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) A drug that is 8. 4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
7. Triazolam (Halcion) – A benzodiazepine (a so-called 'minor' but highly addictive tranquilizer) drug for insomnia that is 8. 7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) – A psychostimulant drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
5. Mefoquine (Lariam) – An anti-malaria drug that is 9. 5 times more likely to be associated with violence (including homicide and suicide) than other drugs.
4. Amphetamines – This general class of dangerous and highly addictive psychostimulant drugs is 9. 6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
3. Paroxetine (Paxil) – An SSRI antidepressant, (with psychostimulating, mania-inducing effects) that is 10. 3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.
2. Fluoxetine (Prozac). A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10. 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
1. Varenicline (Chantix) – A dopaminergic anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.
See related article.
Psychiatric or Psychotropic drugs can no longer be ignored as a source for violent behavior, suicide and mass killings which includes at-risk children, adults and veterans.
Unlike the Virginia Tech University massacre of 2007 where 33 were killed and 29 wounded but the drug record was sealed hopefully the drug record of Adam Lanza will be revealed so that Big Pharma and the danger of psychotropic drugs can be put on notice, if applicable.
As Mike Adams correctly wrote this week in Natural News ' If our goal us to stop the violence in America, we are completely dishonest if we do not consider the mental causes of violent behavior. And that starts with mind-altering psychiatric drugs which I believe have unleashed a drug-induced epidemic of violence across our nation. Obama, Bloomberg and others will point to guns and try to convince you that inanimate metal objects are the cause of this violence. But they lie by omission. No guns shoots itself. The trigger must be pulled by someone, and the mental state of that person is the primary cause of the resulting action. To ignore this fundamental chain of facts is brutally dishonest. '
Why random shooters kill; ' The most important thing to remember about a random mass killer is that they have a delusion of persecution. They literally believe that the world is out to get them. They view ordinary people going about their lives as conspirators in a massive conspiracy to persecute them. They may view somebody close to them, such as a parent or relative or boss or teacher, as a 'leader' in the conspiracy. They see ordinary, everyday occurrences as evidence of persecution. '
30 states have experienced mass murders since 1962 which is directly related to the accelerated use of mind-altering psychiatric drugs whose adverse effects can no longer be ignored.
About the Author: Allen L Roland is a Freelance Alternative Press Online columnist. He is also a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his web site at AllenRoland. Com. He also guest hosts a Truthtalk, a national radio show that airs monthly. He is available for comments, interviews, speaking engagements and private consultations via email at allen@allenroland.com.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/17/true-source-of-random-shootings-and-violence-is-often-psychotropic-drugs/
So we're going to blame this shooting on psychotropic drugs before we even have a shred of evidence he was on them? Now let's imagine two scenarios: one where a person is on psychotropic drugs but does not have a gun, and one where a person has a gun but is not on psychotropic drugs. Which one is more dangerous? Some fuck killed his girlfriend, two other innocent people, and himself yesterday just a few hours after getting bailed out for domestic violence. He was probably on anti-malarial drugs.
Oh, and here is a quote from Allen L. Roland. You all be the judge:
"The Mayan's were correct, when they predicted the world would end in 2012. But it was not the physical world but instead the evolutionary birth of the sacred through love and the subsequent renewal of the Earth. This shift from ego to soul consciousness is already happening ~ whereas a majority of the world have become conscious that we are part of a universal loving plan and each of us has a part to play within it: Allen L Roland"
Whatever.
So we're going to blame this shooting on psychotropic drugs before we even have a shred of evidence he was on them?Absolutely. If we have an extremely transparent agenda. Even if it turns out the kid was on some meds, this Roland has already shown his cards. The kid was a nutjob, on meds or not, and this Roland guy is a nutjob as well. On meds...or not.
I do have a problem with government providing subsidized high priced health care to mongers so they'll have enough money to travel to foreign countries and screw hookers in places like Madahos.
The subsidies disappear at an income level of $44,680 for a single person, and become questionable (because you could get cheaper insurance without the subsidy) around $38,000. You think there are a lot of those people in Madaho's? What world do YOU live in? And why is it high priced health care? In case you are not aware, these will be the same health plans every other Tom, Dick and Harry have. It is neither inherently higher priced nor inherently lower priced. I'd argue, in fact, that because it requires covering preventive care, it will be LOWER priced health care in the (probably very) long run.
But when I start getting the subsidy, I promise to stay out of Madaho's.
Gato Hunter
12-20-12, 02:19
I take halcyon every time I go to the dentist. It knocks you out al most a date rape drug don't ever see how you could be violent on it. I was warned not to go shopping. Lots have gone on after dentist shopping sprees. Effexor is just absolutely fucked up shit.
Would rather smoke crack. Over Effexor.
Absolutely. If we have an extremely transparent agenda. Even if it turns out the kid was on some meds, this Roland has already shown his cards. The kid was a nutjob, on meds or not, and this Roland guy is a nutjob as well. On meds.or not.You mean if you take some nut job and put him on meds, he might still be a nut job and maybe shouldn't have a gun? I wonder how many LE are walking around on these types of meds.
A economic miracle story, Singapore rose from third world status to first world in just 50 years. A recent Gallup poll revealed some startling results. Despite having material security, Singaporeans were found to be emotionless, and appallingly, sad.
Of course, as with most polls, there are some questionable outcomes. But on a general basis, I think there is underlying truth that if you get caught in the "work, buy, eat" Singaporean mentality, you could fall into the rude, tense & sad mode.
Yes, I know the day of reckoning will be upon us, but meanwhile.
Zip a doo dah, zip a doo a.
My oh my, what a wonderful day.
Plenty of sunshine, going my way.
Zip a doo dah, zip a doo a.
Surprise, surprise, I think I even felt my cock a-stirring.
WorldTravel69
03-12-13, 13:03
And Others.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/foreign-student-says-paid-3-000-mcdonalds-study-110507826--abc-news-deals.html
Wild Walleye
03-12-13, 13:15
Yes, I know the day of reckoning will be upon us, but meanwhile.
Zip a doo dah, zip a doo a.
My oh my, what a wonderful day.
Plenty of sunshine, going my way.
Zip a doo dah, zip a doo a.
Surprise, surprise, I think I even felt my cock a-stirring.So long as the gov'mint keeps stoking the market - for the benefit of the .01% (yes, the one one hundredth of a percent) of the population (most of whom, not surprisingly support this government intervention) - it is nearly impossible for the overall average to decline.
So long as the .01% sock some of "it" away in the mattress, they won't get hurt, when the music stops. I am so glad we finally have a government that looks out for the little guy.
WorldTravel69
03-21-13, 21:36
But not complete.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2069784/?ref_=sr_1
Melting sea ice actually lowers sea level. When water freezes its volume increases, like ice in the freezer tray.
(Land ice is another story).
The Baron's author does not under stand how master limited partnerships are structured and took one quarter out of context. Do your own research. I am not an an in vesting professional. For survival, after my hedge fund genius lost a large portion of my net worth, I have become a serious student. My understanding of modern portfolio theory and technical analysis is sophomoric at best.
I have made a lot of money trading around a core position in LINE and LNCO. This is a very good company with great management. They minimize the market price risk by hedging out 4 or 5 years--no huge up side, but limited down side in the way the actual business is run. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS YOURSELF there is a secure 7.5% dividend. The last quarter was not wonderful, but considering the price of natural gas for most of the quarter, not bad nor certainly as horrible as Baron's pointed out. The author works for a hedge fund and might have many motivations besides searching for the truth.
"seeking alpha" will get you starting on the different views of LINE, but the quote is wrong on the dividend. Fidelity reports at the closing div is 7.54% on may 6. Under the quote are links to many different short articles.
http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/line
Below is the earning conference call transcript 4/25/2013:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1371321-linn-energy-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript
Those of us not in the top 0.01% may sometimes have advantages: we can make our personal needle move with out effecting the market and aren't worried about being fired and alot of other assorted baloney. I do not intend to insult the investment / stock market professionals who may read this board. I have no idea how to manage a billion dollars of other people's money. I find it challenging enough to manage my own.
PAPA be--send me an email after looking through this stuff. This is a relatively safe one--if you buy it right--that you don't have to watch all day. They have a nice retirement dividend. To keep your taxes simple--look at LNCO.
YEARS AGO--the AP boys used to trade stock tips. I thought I might get the ball rolling. This site is not nearly as active as it was years ago.
I thought I had you all straighten out last Febuary at dinner on my way home from visiting Bennie in the D.R.
The way to becoming wealthy investing in the stock market is to buy and hold stocks that raise their dividends every year. Only buy the Bluest of the Blue, with a few exceptions, you only want to own the Fortune 50, not the 500. The reason for that is corporations get into trouble every now and then, examples of this are GE, BAC and BP, (which still pay dividends). And when they do get into trouble you want the safety of size to protect your investment while they bail themselves out and restructure.
Your interested in commodities and materials that everyone has to buy and consume, you want the "Best of Bread" at the top of the food chain. Your not interested in the Apples or Googles that will become obsolete the next time someone reinvents the wheel. Your not interested in what Cramer has to say on CNBC, or what the other touts have to say on television, they will lead you astray.
Now I believe Bennie still has my portfolio on his computer, it might be 8 or 10 years old, I don't remember. But lets ask Bennie, he's a professional. Bennie, how is Exon123 portfolio doing over the years, including the crash of 2008 & 2009, knowing that most of my holdings have raised their dividend every year. So the return on invested capital becomes stupid after time and pays for my Mongering.
Exon.
The market is dumb sometimes.
Big Boss Man
05-07-13, 23:10
I have owned it since 2009. My basis is around $20. My yield on cost is 14.4%. I read the Barron's article on Saturday and decided to weather the storm. I am not adding here because I also own ETE, PAA and BPL in this space. BPL may still be a buy here although it has already run up 50% this year. ML just upped their price target to $73 I think. ML analysts are typically 15% overly optimistic according to their own research but these MLPs are hot investments right now.
I am adding Industrials, UTX, MMM and SI, and Tech, QCOM, TDC and AVGO here. The Tech is not really working. Yet?. I thought AAPL was intriguing at $390 but did not pull the trigger and it ran away from me. I sold some broader ETFs, VGK, VEU and AIA to raise the cash. My cash level is higher than targeted allocation whereas in February I was below targeted cash allocation. Also sold some and paid cash for a new car.
Jeffrey Saut is calling this an unprecedented stock market meltup. I suppose we will go through a correction sooner or later. Not expecting a meltdown. My plan is to hold tight and collect my dividends during the down period. Meanwhile these meltups are fun.
I would like an industrial that is higher tech oriented with some growth and a dividend to support it when we finally correct. Eaton does all sorts of high tech industrial stuff and looks ok, except it is so expensive. You follow UTX so help me out here, please.
I have been sitting on apple with a low cost basis confident that is just too cheep even if it's super glory days have paused and there is a risk that it's growth and profit margins will never be what they were a year or two ago. At least I get about 3% while I am waiting and the huge buy-back of stock should move the needle a bit. Yes, it would have been better to sell at over 600, but where I am today and the stock is located it look like a keeper for me.
MY INTENTION IS NOT TO PUT ANYONE TO SLEEP. MOST OF THE GUYS HERE ARE OVER HALF WAY THROUGH THEIR WORK LIVES OR HAVE SOME MONEY TO PUT AWAY. IT IS ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON AND SHARE INFO EVEN IF A PRO MANAGES YOUR MONEY--which is always a good idea.
Benny is a very active trader. I am not as I cannot devote the time all day long. I have owned acore position in LINE for over 5 years. I keep up on the stock and read all the earning calls and research. I read a lot of sources. I value crammer's in depth analysis and think his lighting round is a side show for entertainment. He tends to be much smarter and more knowledgible than me. Many professional fit that discription. I am not a professional invest trained and educationed towards that end.
Bennie is a professional and I am sure there are other professional who read ap. Beenie does post here. I am sure bigboss man and I would both welcome and thoughts that benny or anyone else has. I am sure I have no idea as to line's price on any given day or week or even month. Even though almost all it's production is hegdged, the price varies with energy prices. There are times when it is a bargain and other times when is very richly valued. This is a very regular pattern. It's real growth in by buying choice properties when barains are available. That is why it's balance sheet is a little less prime now than normal.
Exon is a very wealthy older gent whose has more money the he needs. His goal is capital preservation and a reasonable income to pay his bills.
I am still looking to make a dollar with a minimal risk and hold a moderately conservative core. LINE fits my needs as exon loves exon. In my self managed account, the only other current energy holding is KMP--pipelines--a toll road. Conservative business with a nice dividend that also trades with the prices of oil and natural gas--many similar market pricing error ocur. Its income expands and contracts based on two seperate factors: volumn on the toll road--there is some risk here. The also are off and on making generally very smart buys to expand for growth.
I held EOG but sold it too soon MISSED THE LAST 15 POINTS. I made some money and I am assume a major correct when the fed farts. So almost everything risky is gone or being cleared out. I am somewhere between you and where benny used to be. I don't know mif he is still trading most of his money actively as he did 7 or 8 years ago.
Big Boss Man
05-08-13, 23:02
UTX bought Goodyear's defense division. Many thought that they overpaid. The company went through a rough patch. Now opinion is changing in that many believe the integration is occurring faster than first believed. Mostly looking for a 5 to 12% return on this one over the next year.
The main reason I bought it is because it made ML's Quality Dividend Screen. It is a strategy that performs well during a downturn. Other companies that I own currently on the screen are ADP, HON, JNJ, MCD, MFST, PG, WMT and XOM.
Quality dividends is one of the key themes of my portfolio along with exposure to emerging markets. Exposure to emerging markets has lagged domestic exposure stocks in this meltup. I still like the strategy for the long run. I am not under any pressure to beat the market.
Big Boss Man
05-10-13, 21:31
Pimco Closed End Funds typically sell for over a 5% premium to their Net Asset Value. Why anyone would buy a collection of bonds for over their market value is a mystery. Maybe it is because Bill Gross like Warren Buffet is a cult figure.
Occasionally Pimco will open new funds and they will take time to gain traction. Usually they will sell for a premium at the IPO and subsequently drop down in value for awhile. Sometimes pension funds or foundations under their charter cannot buy a security before it been on the market a certain period creating is a limited market for a new issue. Currently Pimco Dynamic Income (PDI) and Pimco Dynamic Credit Income (PCI) have been on the market for less than a year and are selling at or near the asset value.
I have been buying lately 1) because I need to replace some fixed income that has been called and 2) betting that the Pimco will drive these funds to sell at least a 10% premium.
Pimco fund managers like to eat their own cooking. A good place to discover when it is a good time to buy a Pimco fund is on the weekly insider trading list published in Barrons. The fund might be worth soem research if the manager is buying. PDI recently had insider buying activity.
I am long PDI and PCI both bought within the last 3 months. Do your own research.
Big Boss Man
05-25-13, 12:24
Pimco Closed End Funds typically sell for over a 5% premium to their Net Asset Value. Why anyone would buy a collection of bonds for over their market value is a mystery. Maybe it is because Bill Gross like Warren Buffet is a cult figure.
Occasionally Pimco will open new funds and they will take time to gain traction. Usually they will sell for a premium at the IPO and subsequently drop down in value for awhile. Sometimes pension funds or foundations under their charter cannot buy a security before it been on the market a certain period creating is a limited market for a new issue. Currently Pimco Dynamic Income (PDI) and Pimco Dynamic Credit Income (PCI) have been on the market for less than a year and are selling at or near the asset value.
I have been buying lately 1) because I need to replace some fixed income that has been called and 2) betting that the Pimco will drive these funds to sell at least a 10% premium.
Pimco fund managers like to eat their own cooking. A good place to discover when it is a good time to buy a Pimco fund is on the weekly insider trading list published in Barrons. The fund might be worth soem research if the manager is buying. PDI recently had insider buying activity.
I am long PDI and PCI both bought within the last 3 months. Do your own research.George Spritzer wrote a more detailed article detailing and expanding on some of the same points I mentioned. Also you can read some detractor's comments on the play. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1458961-newest-pimco-closed-end-funds-provide-the-best-value.
My investment record is not so great, so take this FWIW. But this one stock I follow is starting to enter ridiculous territory (and way oversold) and that is PetroChina Co. Ltd. (PTR). New 52-week low today on normal volume, closed at 113.00 even. Nobody can pick a bottom with certainty, but my guess is this is close. Except for the 2008-09 plunge, 113 is back to where PTR was in 2010 and even 2006. This is a huge Chinese oil and gas company, with strong and growing financials every which way you look at it (revenues, EPS, forward P / E, etc). Also decent dividend at 3.3%. A long-term play, and 5-10% upside in next 6 months would not be unreasonable. As always, do your own DD.
My investment record is not so great, so take this FWIW. But this one stock I follow is starting to enter ridiculous territory (and way oversold) and that is PetroChina Co. Ltd. (PTR). New 52-week low today on normal volume, closed at 113.00 even. Nobody can pick a bottom with certainty, but my guess is this is close. Except for the 2008-09 plunge, 113 is back to where PTR was in 2010 and even 2006. This is a huge Chinese oil and gas company, with strong and growing financials every which way you look at it (revenues, EPS, forward P / E, etc). Also decent dividend at 3.3%. A long-term play, and 5-10% upside in next 6 months would not be unreasonable. As always, do your own DD.Esten, I learned long ago to avoid Chinese companies. If you think the bookkeeping for US companies is bad, you would not even be able to comprehend the fraud at Chinese companies. Even the Chinese subsidiaries of US companies have significant fraud. And when the auditors try to exam the books, the Chinese branches often refuse on the basis of violating Chinese laws.
Even some of the big investment firms have been burned by Chinese bookkeeping. You can buy US or European oil plays with better dividends and lower risk. I am not a TA chart expert, but I looked at the 5 year chart for PTR. It looks like the low for 2010 was somewhere close to $100, but I see some decent support at $105. Good luck with PTR.
The market is dumb sometimes.Curious what you and the others think of Linn Energy now? I don't own it, but I like the company and management. But I have learned that when a company starts getting attacked, get out of the way. Right or wrong isn't important in the short run.
I especially liked the statement from Raymond James when they downgraded the company yesterday. They stated that they believed the company had done nothing wrong and that the financials were accurate. Well then why downgrade the stock?
Big Boss Man
07-03-13, 15:57
Curious what you and the others think of Linn Energy now? I don't own it, but I like the company and management. But I have learned that when a company starts getting attacked, get out of the way. Right or wrong isn't important in the short run.
I especially liked the statement from Raymond James when they downgraded the company yesterday. They stated that they believed the company had done nothing wrong and that the financials were accurate. Well then why downgrade the stock?I am riding out storm. My basis is the book value at around $18 per share. I do not think their is fraud. My opinion is that there is oil in the ground. I think there are people facing margin calls right now. The retail buyers are scared. No buyers out there and I would not advise buying here. Down 15% today.
If dividend is cut in half, I still have a 7% a year return which I consider sufficient. Still I have had a paper loss that would equal a good three week trip to BA.
Also getting routed in my bond portfolio. Luckily I was at my low allocation when it started so actually need to add at some point if it doesn't bounce back. I still like Pimco Dynamic Income fund despite the drop.
Basically I am still working and do not need to touch the portfolio and in fact still contribute to it. Down markets are opportunities and I am overweighted cash currently. Fully expected crazy summer after an excellent first half.
Like a fine piano tuner, BB has almost single handed, managed to bring Wall Street to its cracking lofty heights. Yet, you seldom hear any praise from the "dinosaur" crowd, even as their portfolios have come back from the dead and flourishing. Don't talk about "down the line" or "future generations". As if you really care.
The waters could be choppy for a while, but there is still gains to be had. Do you have the stamina? Or the word "tapering" cause you to premature ejaculate?
WorldTravel69
10-17-13, 03:45
I posted this Twice on the Obama Thread, but the sensor of the Argentina Private site Killed it out. I will not mention any names but it his name starts with Jac.
Just like he will do to this post.
This is about all the President's Debts while they in were in office since the around 1920's. Check out the Green lines.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I posted this Twice on the Obama Thread, but the sensor of the Argentina Private site Killed it out. I will not mention any names but it his name starts with Jac.
Just like he will do to this post.
This is about all the President's Debts while they in were in office since the around 1920's. Check out the Green lines.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.htmlYour point is? Politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have run up the debt. That it went down during Clinton's second term is probably more attributable to a Republican congress than to Clinton. Bush was a spendthrift, almost as bad as Obama. As your chart illustrates, gross national debt under Obama has risen from 74% of GDP to 107% of GDP, and he still has over 3 years left in his term. We're on a path to bankruptcy. The difference between the parties is that there are some Republicans who recognize the problem and would do something about it.
The green lines by the way are bogus. If they're going to show what the debt would be if budgets were balanced under Reagan and Bush, why don't they do the same thing during Clinton and Obama's presidencies? Answer: Because they're trying to mislead.
Today, the Dow was up 292.71, closing at an all-time high of 16,167.97. What a difference 6 years made. Doom & gloom, depression, bankruptcies, suicides, lives & families destroyed back then. And now? Euphoria & high-fives? Yes, for the moment. But it's like seeing 3 Aces on the flop, will your 7 pair hold up as the high pair with 5 players still in? Where is the last Ace? The betting now begins.
Coincidentally, Gordon Brown, ex-prime minister of the UK from 2007-2010, wrote in the NY Times today, an article "Stumbling towards the Next Crash". In it, he claims that most of the problems that caused the 2008 crisis--excessive borrowing, shadow banking and reckless lending--have not gone away. And we know that every 3 months, some bank will announce that they have agree to pay millions, billions in fines but will not admit to wrongdoing. Brown, who also Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997-2008 says, "International rules are needed for international banks. Without them, global banks will evade regulations by moving operations, changing corporate structures, and redesigning products".
Regulations? That penile drooping word? The AP banking lobby, I sometimes wonder about them.
It's not enough to say, "I believe in market forces", according to Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com commenting on Pope Francis's admonition on excessive capitalism & consumerism. In a flash, 2 hillbillies, Russ Limbaugh and Sarah Palin right away chorused, "pure Marxism". Who's right? What can I say, these guys make millions and I never have more than a thousand baht in my wallet. Envy? Perhaps. Time to look in the mirror and do some self-examination. Didn't that come from Mao?
Punter 127
01-01-14, 23:58
How Will The Economy Improve In 2014 If Almost Everyone Has Less Money To Spend?
The article in the link below contains some interesting and even some somewhat surprising numbers.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-01/how-will-economy-improve-2014-if-almost-everyone-has-less-money-spend
TejanoLibre
01-02-14, 00:16
How Will The Economy Improve In 2014 If Almost Everyone Has Less Money To Spend?
The article in the link below contains some interesting and even some somewhat surprising numbers.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-01/how-will-economy-improve-2014-if-almost-everyone-has-less-money-spendJust Smoke Pot!
Eat Twat!
And Smile A Lot!
TL.
If Scotland's separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September, the 300 year old union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be on the road to disintegration.
And then?
If Scotland's separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September, the 300 year old union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be on the road to disintegration.
And then?Rather like a divorce. Negotiate a division of the assets and liabilities of the old UK.
Scots would like to keep the Pound Sterling. But they will have to accept monetary policy determined in London.
Rather like a divorce. Negotiate a division of the assets and liabilities of the old UK.
Scots would like to keep the Pound Sterling. But they will have to accept monetary policy determined in London.The Scots will lose more then they will gain!
The Scots will lose more then they will gain!I think that's the general idea. Give the impression of free opportunity to choose, but scare the wits out of the Scots voters as the Poll approaches.
I think that's the general idea. Give the impression of free opportunity to choose, but scare the wits out of the Scots voters as the Poll approaches.They are a stubborn bunch, they would rather be "free" and starve to death..
Flexible Horn
01-08-14, 07:36
If Scotland's separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September, the 300 year old union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be on the road to disintegration.
And then?Unfortunately the sweatys won't vote for independence...but if by some miracle they do I say rebuild Hadrian's wall 5 times as high to keep them out.
January 17,2013, Bangkok Post.
"The National Anti Corruption Commission will investigate Prime Minister Yingluck for neglect of duty in the rice pledging scheme after charges of corruption were laid against two of her former cabinet ministers".
Meanwhile, I have been on a 3 year mission for a Yingluck look-a-like to probe. The campaign has not been successful. I was thinking of hiring Darrell Issa to help, but he is too expensive, and his record is just as tragic as mine. Perhaps, I will ask Punter 127 for help, he is just as tenacious as Issa, and he has successfully probe in about 37 countries.
Unfortunately the sweatys won't vote for independence...but if by some miracle they do I say rebuild Hadrian's wall 5 times as high to keep them out.Yo Gary,
Being part Scottish, I'm curious how this name came into use to describe the Scots?
And as far as the wall height, it don't matter. They will tunnel under...and you need the oil.
Jackpot.
According to legendary investment guru Jim Rogers.
"Thailand has had half a dozen coups in the last few decades, but they always start up again. Buying during coups and civil unrest has usually been profitable. ".
My take, wait a while, situation is not destabilized enough yet. But the norm is that Rogers' take is usually as good as gold. But you also have to consider the variables in the perimeters of what he says in regard to your own goals and time expectations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/world/asia/once-the-villages-are-gone-the-culture-is-gone.html?hp&_r=0
I was in Lijiang in Yunnan Province for the X'mas holidays. At one time, almost as remote to the outside world as Mars. Horses were the mode of transportation and days & weeks rather than hours for travelling time. Yes, modern inventions and technology have improve the lives of the weather-beaten mountain people, but it's a sinking feeling that you feel as you walk through Lijiang and see the tourist junk they are selling. Same shit, shop after shop. Bongo drums, of all things! If not for the majestic surrounding mountains and the quaint villages, you might as well be in Disneyland.
"Once or twice a week, a dozen amateur musicians meet under a highway overpass on the outskirts of Beijing, carting with them drums, cymbals and a collective memory of their destroyed village. They set up quickly, then play music that is never heard anymore, not even here, where the steady drone of car muffles the lyrics of love & betrayal, heroic deeds and kingdoms lost.
Rapid unbanization means village life, the bedrock of Chinese culture is rapidly disappearing, and with it, traditions and history.".
According to legendary investment guru Jim Rogers.
"Thailand has had half a dozen coups in the last few decades, but they always start up again. Buying during coups and civil unrest has usually been profitable. ".
My take, wait a while, situation is not destabilized enough yet. But the norm is that Rogers' take is usually as good as gold. But you also have to consider the variables in the perimeters of what he says in regard to your own goals and time expectations.From my point of view Thailand still has not recovered from the the Christmas tsunami. Infrastructure has not been rebuilt, and won't be as there is no money available to do so. Tourism is way down and things are worse then normal. Any one want to buy a condo in Phuket? There is no longer sufficient enough tourism that the rentals don't always cover my monthly maintenance charges!
According to legendary investment guru Jim Rogers.
"Thailand has had half a dozen coups in the last few decades, but they always start up again. Buying during coups and civil unrest has usually been profitable. ".
My take, wait a while, situation is not destabilized enough yet. But the norm is that Rogers' take is usually as good as gold. But you also have to consider the variables in the perimeters of what he says in regard to your own goals and time expectations.I wish you thought his take on Obama were as good as gold. He recognizes Obama is delusional and worries his policies may bankrupt the country and / or lead to high inflation.
The Stock Exchange of Thailand index is at about the same level as the 4th quarter of 2012, and stocks aren't cheap, like they were in 1998 to 2003 or 2008/2009. Toyota is threatening to move production to Indonesia because of the political instability. But this is probably better discussed in one of Giotto's threads.
I wish you thought his take on Obama were as good as gold. He recognizes Obama is delusional and worries his policies may bankrupt the country and / or lead to high inflation.
The Stock Exchange of Thailand index is at about the same level as the 4th quarter of 2012, and stocks aren't cheap, like they were in 1998 to 2003 or 2008/2009. Toyota is threatening to move production to Indonesia because of the political instability. But this is probably better discussed in one of Giotto's threads.The only market I am involve in Bangkok is the fresh market, where I purchase fish, vegetable, fruits and spices. Thai stocks have had a very good run, but I was not involved. Rodgers' take is that Thai politic & economy have had similar cycles of conflict and regeneration. So if you are a student of history and have a long term goal, your returns could be very rewarding.
These days, I only buy ripe bananas for immediate consumption. Waiting for green bananas to ripen when you are a senior citizen is taking an unnecessary gamble.
As for America's slide to bankruptcy, it has been going on for a few decades and presidents. Obama gets a reprieve due to the financial crisis. So once more, may I repeat: Employment & Economic Recovery in the Short Term, Deficit Reduction Long Term.
The SuperBowl was a slaughter, as was O'Reilly by Obama on Fox. Never saw such desperation by O'Reilly. And now, his groupies are stroking his burned ego. In fact, Hannity is trying to salvage that embarassing interview right now on Fox.
WorldTravel69
02-20-14, 04:30
This is maybe where some of our families started or maybe You.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2RBDtmM_TI
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/british-pubs-may-be-becom_n_178086.html
Or like the British Empire, will the English pub become a relic of the past?
http://www.gailfosler.com/singapores-lessons-an-interview-with-tharman-shanmugaratnam
Does this mean that Singapore is a liberal or conservative government? Neither, just a clean, responsible and capable government.
The question is can Americans live under such a government? I doubt it very much.
http://www.gailfosler.com/singapores-lessons-an-interview-with-tharman-shanmugaratnam
Does this mean that Singapore is a liberal or conservative government? Neither, just a clean, responsible and capable government.
The question is can Americans live under such a government? I doubt it very much.
Interesting article, thanks, especially the parts about the government being forced to balance its budget over 5 year periods, and people being paid to work instead of being paid for unemployment. I admire Singapore. Fifty years ago it was dirt poor and had no natural resources. Today, per capita, it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The question isn't as much whether Americans could live under such a government, but whether politicians could provide it. Some states and localities in the USA probably could, but our federal government is way too inefficient. The maximum income tax rate in Singapore is 20% at the individual level and 17% at the corporate level, and there's no tax on capital gains and dividends. Yet the government runs budget surpluses instead of budget deficits. There is substantial withholding from paychecks and contributions from employers (like social security / medicare in the USA) for individual accounts that can be used for retirement, medical costs, housing and education. This goes against my Libertarian instincts. However, the system appears to work. And admittedly some people are going to spend every dime they make, so this is a way to cope with that.
The question isn't as much whether Americans could live under such a government, but whether politicians could provide it. There is substantial withholding from paychecks and contributions from employers (like social security / medicare in the USA) for individual accounts that can be used for retirement, medical costs, housing and education. This goes against my Libertarian instincts.American culture will never allow the state (government) to dictate their social behavior in the positive manner that Singapore does. Like housing and education. And American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits which is stimulated by the mafia financial sector in conjuction with their cohorts in Congress. Back to the drawing boards.
...dictate their social behavior in the positive manner...My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!
...American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits...Yes, we call that "freedom", as opposed to what you would advocate...
"American social behavior is dictated by their government's spending habits".
Think about it.
Thanks,
Jax
My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!
Yes, we call that "freedom", as opposed to what you would advocate...
Think about it.JaxI did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.
May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.
WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?
The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.
It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.
I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.
We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.
I did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.
May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.
WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?
The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.
It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.
I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.
We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.
Tres3.
Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.
Tres3.Can you be more specific?
The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.
Tres3.
The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.
Tres3.But I will submit to your correction. As stated, I reprinted the conclusion of an article I posted a link to in Post #191. As the resulting posts were responses to that post, I did not see the need to post a reference. I apologize for overlooking the obvious.
Big Boss Man
04-21-14, 23:21
"The facts are, the stock market is basically at its all-time high, corporate profitability is at its all-time high, and corporate balance sheets have essentially never been in better shape. Financial obligations have been pushed out for a long time and the economy bottomed two months after President Obama took office and may be on an upswing until he is out of office. Now, before we start a riot from my right-wing readers and colleagues, we want to make sure people understand my point. Economies and markets rise and fall nearly independently of our Presidents. We were at a political debate / show many years ago between conservative Bill Bennett and then-comedian, now liberal Senator Al Franken. When they were discussing the success of the economy under the Clinton administration, Bennett said, "I take my dog to the beach and we watch the sunrise, I just don't give him (my dog) credit for it." That's how we feel about blaming or giving credit to Presidents for market or economic success.".
We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/bruni-america-the-shrunken.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Remember a time when there was a thread in AP named, Will China Lead the World? I still remember the die-hards & the patriots and the abusive language they used. And just as you are about to say that the Black Messiah is leading us down the ravine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-not-just-about-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
About Frank Bruni & Thomas Friedman, yes I know, they know shit!
We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.
Too much fat in the arteries Rev! The USA is waddling around lit up on booze and crystal meth, fingering their revolver, and jerking off to pictures of Justin Bieber and V. Stiviano. The die has been cast. Better they switch to cialis from viagra and avoid "the big one".
"The facts are, the stock market is basically at its all-time high, corporate profitability is at its all-time high, and corporate balance sheets have essentially never been in better shape. Financial obligations have been pushed out for a long time and the economy bottomed two months after President Obama took office and may be on an upswing until he is out of office. Now, before we start a riot from my right-wing readers and colleagues, we want to make sure people understand my point. Economies and markets rise and fall nearly independently of our Presidents. We were at a political debate / show many years ago between conservative Bill Bennett and then-comedian, now liberal Senator Al Franken. When they were discussing the success of the economy under the Clinton administration, Bennett said, "I take my dog to the beach and we watch the sunrise, I just don't give him (my dog) credit for it." That's how we feel about blaming or giving credit to Presidents for market or economic success.".Indeed, Bill Bennett is an expert on "the odds". Maybe he should have consulted his dog before he lost millions of dollars in Vegas.
And so, after months of demonstrations, violence, judicial ingenuities, threats, counter threats, rumors, it came down to over-exceeding the authority of the Prime Minister's Office that saw Yinluck Shinwatra removed from her office along with a majority of the cabinet. The decision by the Constitutional Court was not a big surprise for those that understand the parties involve. It was a sad day, as we will no longer be able to indulge in our fantasies with Yingluck's constant presence in mass media. Aaarrh, Mrs. Robinson is gone.
There was a rumor that the US and the CIA had a role in this momentous overthrow of the government. A top CIA agent was spotted in the Four Seasons Hotel and met local representatives amidst the Erawan shrine.
I agree, K. Yingluck is hot. But then I thought Hillary was too during Clinton's first term. And would do Christina Kirchner if I were drunk on my ass.
And so, after months of demonstrations, violence, judicial ingenuities, threats, counter threats, rumors, it came down to over-exceeding the authority of the Prime Minister's Office that saw Yinluck Shinwatra removed from her office along with a majority of the cabinet. The decision by the Constitutional Court was not a big surprise for those that understand the parties involve. It was a sad day, as we will no longer be able to indulge in our fantasies with Yingluck's constant presence in mass media. Aaarrh, Mrs. Robinson is gone.
There was a rumor that the US and the CIA had a role in this momentous overthrow of the government. A top CIA agent was spotted in the Four Seasons Hotel and met local representatives amidst the Erawan shrine.And my Yingluck lookalike gato got married and left the biz. A bad week. :(
This is for the fat cats enjoying their cigars and bourbon.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/09/business/student-essays-your-money.html?nav
Member #4112
05-11-14, 15:11
I agree, K. Yingluck is hot. But then I thought Hillary was too during Clinton's first term. And would do Christina Kirchner if I were drunk on my ass.Tiny, tell me it ain't true about Hillary. Man, even back then, if you told her to haul ass it would take two trips.
It's getting dizzy at the peak! So much so, that I'm developing vertigo. When do I get off the mountaintop?
And here is an article that will shrink your balls, because you realize that you are but a monkey on a roller coaster ride. And whatever peanuts & bananas you managed to grab depends on you being lucky more than anything else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html
Reverend, IMHO, certain hedge fund managers, baseball and basketball players, and actors and actresses are paid way too much for what they do. Not to mention people who win lotteries. But so what? It's a drop in the bucket compared to a 17 trillion dollar economy. Better to let the free market work instead of capping how much money people can make, with a 90% tax rate or whatever.
This is rich:
America has a long tradition of imposing high taxes on big incomes and large fortunes, designed to limit the concentration of economic power as well as raising revenue. These days, however, suggestions that we revive that tradition face angry claims that taxing the rich is destructive and immoral destructive because it discourages job creators from doing their thing, immoral because people have a right to keep what they earn.
"Revive"??? With federal rates up to 43.4% on income, state rates up to 13.3%, and then a 40% death tax, the tradition of imposing high taxes on big incomes and large fortunes is still in effect. Yes, some people employ armies of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants and take advantage of loopholes to reduce these rates. Which one of the reasons why many believe eliminating the loopholes and instituting a flatter tax system makes sense.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/829347f8-df6c-11e3-8842-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32IJ8AJyc
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/credit-suisse-pleads-guilty-in-three-year-u-s-tax-evasion-probe.html
Laughing all the way to the urinal as usual. As usual, nobody go to jail. You are not outraged? Yeah, I know, same old story.
Somehow, I can't get any links to work. But the news is everywhere.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/829347f8-df6c-11e3-8842-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32IJ8AJyc
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/credit-suisse-pleads-guilty-in-three-year-u-s-tax-evasion-probe.html
Laughing all the way to the urinal as usual. As usual, nobody go to jail. You are not outraged? Yeah, I know, same old story.
Somehow, I can't get any links to work. But the news is everywhere.Credit Suisse was helping wealthy Americans evade taxes, even though taxes have been near historic lows. According to reports they used sham entities to disguise undeclared accounts, failed to maintain USA Account information, destroyed records, and helped clients withdraw money from accounts by providing hand-delivered cash. Unbelievable. I am glad the DOJ cracked down on this, even if nobody went to jail. The US will get $1.8 Billion from the plea deal, and CS will provide information about other fund transfers, which may provide leads to other tax havens such as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. Good chance DOJ or IRS will be pursuing those leads.
Member #4112
05-21-14, 11:53
Credit Suisse was helping wealthy Americans evade taxes, even though taxes have been near historic lows. According to reports they used sham entities to disguise undeclared accounts, failed to maintain USA Account information, destroyed records, and helped clients withdraw money from accounts by providing hand-delivered cash. Unbelievable. I am glad the DOJ cracked down on this, even if nobody went to jail. The US will get $1.8 Billion from the plea deal, and CS will provide information about other fund transfers, which may provide leads to other tax havens such as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. Good chance DOJ or IRS will be pursuing those leads.Gee what a surprise, the open secret of the Gnomes in Switzerland hiding money is now official.
Tell me Esten have you never heard of numbered Swiss accounts or of Switzerland's restrictive banking laws before now?
FYI, these are the same Gnomes who helped the Nazis hide the money they stole from the Jews they exterminated (gold fillings no less), and all the other countries they raped.
Doppelganger, That was an interesting observation. If people like Obama and Holder (USA Attorney General) ever take complete control of the USA, we may be wishing there were bankers whose first loyalties were to their clients instead of to foreign governments. Credit Suisse probably wasn't doing anything for its USA clients that Citibank and Bank of America aren't doing for their Venezuelan and Argentine clients.
This is a little off the subject and not directed to Doppelganger, but if you're a USA citizen and you have a bank account, in Argentina or elsewhere, that you haven't declared to the USA government, you need to see a good tax lawyer or accountant. I know someone very well who had a bank account in Canada that she didn't declare. She went into the IRS voluntary disclosure program, and ended up paying $11 in back taxes, penalties and interest. And $3500 for failure to file the disclosure forms. And she got off easy. Come forward voluntarily and you'll lose about 30% of the maximum value in your foreign bank account (s). If they catch you, they'll likely take over 100% of the maximum value of your accounts, even if the amount of tax you failed to pay was negligible. They could also put you in jail. Please note that if you live in Argentina and don't have any income in the USA, it doesn't matter. If you're a U.S. citizen and you don't file the forms declaring your bank account, you're breaking the law.
All this started by the way around 2009, when Obama became president. Obviously, it's not entirely about the taxes, or the enormous penalties would be levied for failure to pay taxes instead of failure to file forms. The government wants to know exactly where your assets are. And Holder has succeeded where the Nazis failed. While the Swiss banks hid money for Nazis, they also hid it from the Nazis on behalf of German Jews. Yes, some of their families had hell getting their hands on the assets after the Holocaust, but that's a different topic.
And so to no surprise for observers, the Military imposed martial law and took over the function of governing for the immediate future. Condemnations and ridicule from outside Thailand was the immediate response. And predictably, Secretary of State Kerry put on his cowboy hat & boots and proclaim indignation and spin the usual shit about democracy and freedom. Well, it's a ritual and all about appearances, so nothing to get agitated about. After all, the Thai military has a long history of US sponsorship. No order of evacuation of American citizens was given. I would have been first in line for a free flight to Los Angeles to get some tacos and pastrami sandwich.
In the short run, this ended the soap opera that never had an ending. What will emerge, we shall see. But for now, everything is different, but still same, same.
And so to no surprise for observers, the Military imposed martial law and took over the function of governing for the immediate future. Condemnations and ridicule from outside Thailand was the immediate response. And predictably, Secretary of State Kerry put on his cowboy hat & boots and proclaim indignation and spin the usual shit about democracy and freedom. Well, it's a ritual and all about appearances, so nothing to get agitated about. After all, the Thai military has a long history of US sponsorship. No order of evacuation of American citizens was given. I would have been first in line for a free flight to Los Angeles to get some tacos and pastrami sandwich.
In the short run, this ended the soap opera that never had an ending. What will emerge, we shall see. But for now, everything is different, but still same, same.No TV, meaning no sports, but the blow job boom boom bars still open. If you're a late night boozer like I used to be you're shit out of luck.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/cohen-capitalism-eating-its-children.html?_r=0
Thoughts that I had for a long time, but unable to articulate in a cohesive manner.
Socialism may not be the end all answer, but has capitalism run its course? Probably not. But the dinosaurs that enjoy capitalism's good run will swear on their dying beds that it does not need any tinkering. They feel that they are superior and their beliefs do not have to change. But change, there shall be. United States is a basket case right now.
This is what the Governor of the Bank of England says "Prosperity requires just not investment in economic capital but investment in social capital.".
And Roger Cohen of the NY Times adds, "globalization and technology magnify the returns of the super rich, operating in a world of low taxation and lax regulations where short term gains becomes a guiding principle. Companies are not well served by boards that are too often, in the words of one participant, male, stale, and pale."
Them's fightin' words Revren. Just kidding. Respectfully, I don't understand how Cohen's and your conclusions flow from Carney's statements. Carney mostly makes sense to me. The root cause of the problems he identifies are bad governance and crony capitalism, particularly as applied to banks and the financial industry. "Unchecked market fundamentalism" is indeed a bad thing if it allows banks to become too big to fail, and homeowners to borrow 100% of the money to buy homes that cost 10X more than their annual incomes. Please note that he defines social capital as "the links, shared values and beliefs in a society which encourage individuals not only to take responsibility for themselves and their families but also to trust each other and work collaboratively to support each other." You and Cohen believe he means we're too far towards the capitalist end of the socialist-capitalist spectrum. I believe that could have come straight out of the Tea Party manifesto.
Punter 127
05-30-14, 21:51
WOW
Companies are not well served by boards that are too often, in the words of one participant, male, stale, and pale."Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?
WOW
Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?None of the above. Really, I don't have the energy to hate anybody.
But I think it tick the boxes of the group that oppose Obama vehemently from day one. That is well documented. Fits the two Donald's, Trump & Sterling to just name a couple. In the end, politics and government is all about who has the power and holding on to the power, be it the USA or Thailand.
Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis. And so this leads us back to my original post and to what the Governor of the Bank of England Carney have to say. That is if you are really interested or have an open mind.
You and Cohen believe he means we're too far towards the capitalist end of the socialist-capitalist spectrum. I believe that could have come straight out of the Tea Party manifesto.15 rounds, you and me for the Undisputed Champion of Nana Plaza Parking Lot.
15 rounds, you and me for the Undisputed Champion of Nana Plaza Parking Lot.No way Reverend. You'd kick my ass. Underneath your calm demeanor lurks a Kung Fu master. And besides your choice of venue sucks. Unless it's her night off my ex-wife would be there to see it happen, and that would be doubly humiliating.
Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis.Obama was "crippled" by his own lack of leadership skills and executive mangement experience, period.
It's as simple as that.
Punter 127
06-01-14, 00:22
WOW
Misandrism (male), Ageism (stale), and Racism (pale) all in one fell swoop. Are you a hater of all older white men or just the ones that are successful?
None of the above. Really, I don't have the energy to hate anybody.
Tout au contraire, it's all the above.
And the rest of your reply is nothing more than an attempt to spin and divert away from the bigotry in your original post.
Tout au contraire, it's all the above.
And the rest of your reply is nothing more than an attempt to spin and divert away from the bigotry in your original post. I weigh in at about 1. 7, but the scale has not been calibrated for some time.
Obama being elected signify change in America. To be honest, he has not been as successful as he or I wish to see. He was crippled not only by the hate and gridlock but by the financial crisis.
Obama was "crippled" by his own lack of leadership skills and executive management experience, period.
It's as simple as that. Reverend, Jackson's explanation makes more sense to me. Obama is the only President since Gerald Ford who had no experience as an executive coming into office. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent significant time running state governments. And Bush Sr. founded businesses, served as a CEO, and ran government agencies. Experience as a legislator, community activist and law professor doesn't prepare a person to run the largest government / bureaucracy in the world.
When Obama came to office in 2008 he had a Democratic House and Senate. He even had 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans couldn't filibuster. He also had good will by virtue of being the first Black American President. There's a long list of prominent Republicans who supported him in 2008. He however was dogmatic and partisan. When he lost the House, he didn't display the leadership skills of Reagan or Clinton. He didn't reach across the aisle and forge compromises with Republicans.
As to the financial crisis, Reagan faced a crisis too, a deep recession AND high inflation, which you'd think would be harder to pull out of than what we went through in 2008/2009. But thanks largely to the leadership skills of Reagan and Volcker and a willingness to do what's best for the country instead of what's politically expedient, the economy recovered nicely. Obama / Geithner, for better or worse, continued the Bush / Paulson strategy. And flubbed an $800 billion stimulus, the largest in the country's history, by allocating much of it to Democratic Party constituencies.
Big Boss Man
06-02-14, 13:05
Reverend, Jackson's explanation makes more sense to me. Obama is the only President since Gerald Ford who had no experience as an executive coming into office. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent significant time running state governments. And Bush Sr. founded businesses, served as a CEO, and ran government agencies. Experience as a legislator, community activist and law professor doesn't prepare a person to run the largest government / bureaucracy in the world.
When Obama came to office in 2008 he had a Democratic House and Senate. He even had 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans couldn't filibuster. He also had good will by virtue of being the first Black American President. There's a long list of prominent Republicans who supported him in 2008. He however was dogmatic and partisan. When he lost the House, he didn't display the leadership skills of Reagan or Clinton. He didn't reach across the aisle and forge compromises with Republicans.
As to the financial crisis, Reagan faced a crisis too, a deep recession AND high inflation, which you'd think would be harder to pull out of than what we went through in 2008/2009. But thanks largely to the leadership skills of Reagan and Volcker and a willingness to do what's best for the country instead of what's politically expedient, the economy recovered nicely. Obama / Geithner, for better or worse, continued the Bush / Paulson strategy. And flubbed an $800 billion stimulus, the largest in the country's history, by allocating much of it to Democratic Party constituencies. These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done.
Member #4112
06-02-14, 18:51
These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done. BBM, first you have to live in the real world before you can reach across the isle and compromise after you no longer have control of the Congress. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans during his first two years in office, with the liberals dancing in the streets and the left wing news media predicting the death of conservatism in 2008. Since the loss of the House in 2010, Obama has bypassed Congress at every step to achieve his vision of "transforming America" via executive fiat. Had a Republican president embarked on such an imperial rule by executive fiat the liberals and left wing media would have been apoplectic.
Jackson and Tiny are correct, Obama has nothing to draw on to govern. It does provide a credible explanation for lack of economic growth, lack of job growth, lack of a foreign policy, or any other policy beyond the Cult of Obama.
While I am apposed to such actions by the chief executive, I look forward to a Republican taking the White House in 2016 and reversing all this nonsense by the same method with which it was imposed, executive fiat. I would also hope the new president speaks about Obama at the inauguration with equal or greater distain as Obama heaped upon Bush.
It appears with this latest "prisoner of war" exchange, where the father praises Allah and speaks in Pastu in the rose garden, for 5 of the worst Taliban prisoners at GTMO Obama has managed to step in it again. A lot of folks in the Army are not happy since this guy WALKED OFF from his post before he was "captured" Just in case you did not know I believe this is the only live soldier to be taken captive, every other American solider taken alive was beheaded!
Add to that little debacle Obama's new climate change initiate under the guise of the Clear Air Act by the EPA and it appears Obama intends to drag down his entire party with him this year.
Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.
Yes November 2014 will be most interesting.
. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans
Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.
Yes November 2014 will be most interesting. The man obviously bug you even before he display his "emperor" characteristics. My perception is of course, different. For you, he will always be the community organizer. Yet, the rush by the rest of the world to embrace him must have surely irk and astonish you. I remember very clearly, all the demeaning, tearing down of his name and character. It was very difficult to swallow for alot of people. The POTUS being black. Remember the movie, Guess Who is Coming to Dinner?
Big Boss Man
06-02-14, 21:11
BBM, first you have to live in the real world before you can reach across the isle and compromise after you no longer have control of the Congress. Perhaps that explains why Obama was condescending and imperious when dealing with the Republicans during his first two years in office, with the liberals dancing in the streets and the left wing news media predicting the death of conservatism in 2008. Since the loss of the House in 2010, Obama has bypassed Congress at every step to achieve his vision of "transforming America" via executive fiat. Had a Republican president embarked on such an imperial rule by executive fiat the liberals and left wing media would have been apoplectic.
Jackson and Tiny are correct, Obama has nothing to draw on to govern. It does provide a credible explanation for lack of economic growth, lack of job growth, lack of a foreign policy, or any other policy beyond the Cult of Obama.
While I am apposed to such actions by the chief executive, I look forward to a Republican taking the White House in 2016 and reversing all this nonsense by the same method with which it was imposed, executive fiat. I would also hope the new president speaks about Obama at the inauguration with equal or greater distain as Obama heaped upon Bush.
It appears with this latest "prisoner of war" exchange, where the father praises Allah and speaks in Pastu in the rose garden, for 5 of the worst Taliban prisoners at GTMO Obama has managed to step in it again. A lot of folks in the Army are not happy since this guy WALKED OFF from his post before he was "captured" Just in case you did not know I believe this is the only live soldier to be taken captive, every other American solider taken alive was beheaded!
Add to that little debacle Obama's new climate change initiate under the guise of the Clear Air Act by the EPA and it appears Obama intends to drag down his entire party with him this year.
Don't forget all those cancellation notices will come out in a few months.
Yes November 2014 will be most interesting. Doppelganger you wrote 365 words and still did not give Obama one person to call in the Republican Party that could cut a deal which was my main point. I think Reagan had O'Neill and Clinton had Gingrich. I find Scott Walker promising.
Member #4112
06-02-14, 23:53
REV BS, I don't have a problem with Obama's skin color but his arrogance, ignorance and incompetence as POTUS. You don't see anyone rushing now, more like running away or just ignoring the village idiot. The perfect example of the Obama presidency was the Nobel Peace Prize, the prize awarded to those reaching the pinnacle of their professions after a lifetime of work was awarded to this man for doing NOTHING other than being the first Black US President.
BBM, the whole point of the post which you missed because you must have been trying, Obama is not interested in reaching out to the other side. Obama has said over and over he can do it all with his phone and executive fiat, he does not need Congress.
Obama may well bring his own party to ruin due to him being a legend in his own mind. Carter must be loving it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FclhuLsYi1c
Lee Kuan Yew warns Congress that American relevance in the Far East is under seige. A few years old, but wow, very far reaching and dynamic.
If link does not work, google you tube lee kuan yew, look for If Obama gets a second tern(MM dialogue, part 2)
Punter 127
06-03-14, 07:29
Harry Reid's Senate Blockade
A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body.
These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done.
May 13, 2014 7:03 p. m. ET
The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.
The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.
The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852
Hey BigBossMan, who do you call to cut a deal with Democrats?
GOP rep. : House passed a dozen VA reform bills that are DOA in Senate
May 23, 2014
While the president pounds his fist and proclaims hes madder than hell over the Veterans Affairs scandal and then just asks for more time to review and investigate, House Republicans are getting pretty tired of the do-nothing Senate and a president who claims to only learn about problems in his administration on cable news.
Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House and she told (Larry O'Connor) Wednesday on WMAL radio in Washington, D. C., that the House has passed a dozen bills for reform of the VA and they are collecting dust on (Sen.) Harry Reids desk:
OCONNOR: Are your colleagues in the House doing something about this decades-old problem so we can get something done for the vets?
REP WALORSKI: In the past 18 months, since Ive been a member of Congress, weve passed, on the House floor, at least 12 reform VA bills. Mandating the VA to fix different things, mandating the VA to report different things, mandating them to fix their website, bipartisan bills that went to the Senate, and they are DOA on the Senate side
The Indiana freshman went on to say, We can pass bills all day long here on the House side, but if the Senate doesn't get in gear and be held responsible and be held accountable for these veterans, its not going to work. These things have been dead on arrival. Harry Reid has not moved one of these bills.
So when you hear the president and the Democrats in Congress lament the do nothing Congress and proclaim their year of action in which President Obama will act if Congress fails to act, take note that Harry Reid has not brought any of the House VA reform bills to the Senate floor for consideration while veterans are dying as they wait for care.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/23/gop-rep-house-passed-a-dozen-va-reform-bills-that-are-doa-in-senate-120812
Twelve VA reform bills that Reid is blocking, really BigBossMan, really?
John Boehner may be a left leaning RINO but he still gets bills passed.
Member #4112
06-03-14, 11:35
Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.
In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?
That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?
Punter 127
06-04-14, 00:59
Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.
In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?
That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?It's unbelievable that a sitting President would make such a remark. I was unaware of Obamas remark until now, but coupled with the links in my previous post it's very revealing indeed. Without Harry Reid running blocker Obama would have to use that Infamous pen of his for vetoes, hence exposing his true agendas and lessening his ability to point blame at others.
I know Obama promised to shutdown Guantanamo but I didn't know he was going to do it by letting all the prisoners go free. I wish he would use some of those great negotiating skills with Mexico, you know maybe trade 5 or 10 undocumented Democrats for one imprisoned U.S. Marine. They could even let them keep the guns the guy had, oh but wait they may not want those because they still have all the missing "Fast and Furious" guns.
I don't really mean to belittle the prisoner exchange because it's a very serious matter, and I keep waiting for them to give us some serious justification for such an exchange. Apparently they received absolutely no assurances of any kind that these people would not return to their terrorist activities.
This exchange has done extreme damage to the credibility of the United States Government. But can you imagine the blowback to this administration and the Democrat party if these when these same terrorist are found responsible for more deaths in the future? What the hell was they thinking?
Member #4112
06-04-14, 10:35
I was watching the State Department news briefing by the blond we have seen over and over on the Benghazi tragedy and was astounded to hear her say the troops who served with the POW / deserter were not in a position to judge if he went AWOL or to judge his actions before, during or after, even though they were there serving with him. When pressed by a non-Fox reporter about that statement, she clearly stated she was in a better position to judge those actions than his fellow soldiers!
Benghazi 2. 0.
Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".
It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.
In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspx
Punter 127
06-05-14, 08:28
Allen West, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who saw action in Iraq, first addressed the circumstances surrounding Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
He couldnt recall a single instance where enemy combatants captured and held an American POW for any significant length of time; they were typically shot in the back of the head, or ritually beheaded and gutted.
So why did they keep Bowe Bergdahl for five years? West asked.[snipe]Maybe Esten could answer that question for us.
On West blog he also said.
Why would the United States acquiesce to the demands of a non-state, non-uniform terrorist organization the Taliban? The Taliban is our enemy and it is not a nation-state with whom we should enter into negotiations. There are some 141 detainees at GITMO. The five released were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omars inner circle. If we wanted to release detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, there were many others to choose from. Why these?
The rate of recidivism for GITMO released detainees has gone from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 and why would we think a one-year travel ban out of Qatar will be respected, or even make a difference with todays modern communications technology? Even Obama has now stated they may just return to terrorist activity.
Obamas breaking of the law in this case presents serious national security concerns for all Americans. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists.
Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed National Security Advisor, didnt even realize his heinous actions or maybe as usual she just lied about it again. Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction? Lets not send Susan Rice out ever again.
To hear Obama state that no American should be left behind has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die? [snip]"Serious national security concerns for all Americans" and I'd say especially those of us that travel internationally. West ask hard questions and spoke strong words that are hard to argue with, unless of course you put politics above the safety of the American people.
Member #4112
06-05-14, 10:55
Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".
It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.
In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspxEsten, only you could come up with such unbelievable crapola! Obama's own party was against releasing the GTMO prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl. Even today his own party rails against Obama for violating the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before the release as well as the prisoner swap itself.
I am to assume you are like the State Department Blond who asserts she knows better than the troops who served with Bergdahl? According to reports Special Ops refused to launch a mission and endanger personnel for a deserter. Other revelations from those who served with Bergdahl are even more damming. The general consensus at Bagram according to a captain in the brigade signal unit there was disbelief. Among the troops there with multiple tours the Taliban don't take prisoners and keep them alive (see my earlier post).
Everything Obama has told the American people about this has been a lie from imminent harm to Bergdahl to the prisoners were under supervision in Qatar.
Even for you Esten, this is a new low.
It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility."It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.
On West blog he also said.Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.
"It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.
Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/
Punter 127
06-06-14, 09:22
Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.When Esten starts talking about Fox News and quoting Charles Krauthammer without saying anything derogatory you know he's desperate and in panic mold. It's very revealing that he attacked Lieutenant Colonel West, but did not address his message, and he failed to mention that Krauthammer also said "court-martial him to the fullest extent for desertion".
"Obama Advisers Repeatedly Told President Not to Deal"
"President Barack Obama was repeatedly advised by several of the nation's top military and intelligence officials not to engage in the prisoner swap to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, which freed five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo prison, according to reports."
When the White House first began considering an exchange in 2011 and 2012, James Clapper, then director of National Intelligence, flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, according to The Daily Beast. [snip]
Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director, also confirmed Wednesday that he was opposed to a possible Bergdahl prisoner swap during his tenure and questioned the deal Obama reached last week.
Panetta recalled that at the time discussions of a Bergdahl prisoner swap took place, "I said, 'Wait, I have an obligation under the law. If I send prisoners from Guantanamo, they have to guarantee they don't go back to the battlefield.' I had serious concerns."
He added he "just assumed it was never going to happen."
Clapper had a similar rationale, according to the Beast, and said the risk was too high that the Taliban leaders would return to the battlefield.
Intelligence and defense officials told the Beast that the deal that was arranged was hastily done, and in a manner that suggested it was designed to squelch dissent and impose the will of the White House.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-prisoners/2014/06/05/id/575362/ Maybe those guys are " vitriolic buffoons" as well, who knows?
"The Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (no pun intended), that Tea Party favorite, Dianne Feinstein of California, was down right angry."
I think that they expected everybody just to fall in line, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of those who received a personal apology from a senior White House aide.
Feinstein said the White House failed to anticipate that bypassing Congress would provoke anger on both sides of the aisle. The discovery that the five Afghans were top-ranking Taliban commanders has fueled concerns that the trade may endanger U.S. security.
This is an issue that certainly those of us on the Intelligence Committee care a great deal about, Feinstein said. Because we believe that there is potential danger from certain of these five people.She must have joined "The Party of No", next thing you know she'll want a gun permit.
Here's what Rusty Bradley had to say, maybe you'd like to spit in his face as well.
Little Doubt Bergdahl Is a Deserter.
The former commander of U.S. Special Forces in Southern Afghanistan believes there is zero doubt just-freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was under his command, is guilty of being a deserter. [snip]
Bradley said he "absolutely'' expects the five freed terrorists to once again fight American forces.
"American coalition forces members will be killed when these guys return back to the battlefield,'' he said.
"[And] this affects every civilian who travels to a foreign country, especially where there are terrorist organizations operating. They now have open game
"In my opinion, the president and the administration does not understand the challenges that this decision has left us with, and it's going to far exceed this presidency and our generations because now the precedence has been set. There's no turning back on it It literally, it leaves me shaking my head.'' [snip]
http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Special-Forces-Bergdahl-Afghanistan/2014/06/05/id/575432/
The evidence seems to be pouring in on Bergdahl and I tend to believe the guys that were on the ground with him. But I'm ok with letting the military deal with him as long as they're allowed to handle it.
What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.
When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.
Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.
Rc Collins
06-06-14, 14:01
Some people on the left and many on the right are upset. It happens with every single issue now. Especially anything Obama does but in the end, he is the president and Commander in Chief. So if some people are against a course of action, Obama still has the authority to do as he pleases. Every other president has done the same. They are not obligated to follow anyone's advise and there were people who did advise him to make the deal as well as those who were against it. Some people advised Bush against going into Iraq but he did it anyway. Becase he was not bounded by their advise.
The right needs to stop with yelling impeach him every time Obama takes action they don't like. Conservatives Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and Lindsey Graham, all long time Obama bashers have all said that the president had the authority do make the deal and did not break the law. Krauthammer went even further by saying that these deals/negotiations are always once sided regardless of who is the President. Primarily because the US is a civilized country dealing with barbaric thugs. Former Bush adviser John Bellinger said Obama made the right decision and that Bush would have done the same thing as Obama and GOP Congressman Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) has now come out and criticize his own party for their response to this deal saying there is precedent for what Obama did.
http://ezkool.com/2014/06/former-bush-official-on-fox-obama-did-the-right-thing-to-free-sgt-bergdahl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAUI_xBtxfY
The State department/Pentagon spokesperson most certainly will know if a soldier is a deserter because they have access to the soldier's Official Military Personnel File. The soldiers on the ground do not. There may or may not be extenuating circumstances but we will never know until the military leadership tells us what his legal status is. To change soldier's duty status from AWOL to "deserter" or DFR is a legal classification and can be made only by a unit commander. That classification could then be challenged in a military court and ultimately decided by a military judge. Innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes but in this case some are willing to dismiss that to make their point.
Some are saying Bergdahl is only a lowly Sergeant who was traded for five top terrorist so it was a terrible deal. The question I have for them is if Bergdahl was their son or father, or family member, would it be ok to leave him behind because he is only a Sergeant or would you give your blessings on a deal to bring him home? We all know the answer to that question.
Politics is now only a game and this issue is about politics. Look at how many talking points are being slung around. Conservatives voters will continue to hate Obama and bash him at very turn while liberals adore him and wish he could stay on longer. No one wins this game but this issue is done, bring on the next one so we can hear more talking points while very little of anything gets done.
Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/Voters like whoever promises them the most free money, period.
If the Dems were somehow prohibited from creating and operating government programs that give away free money, they'd never win another election.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the Republicans will never be able to "out promise" the Democrats.
Thanks,
Jackson
What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.
When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.
Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.As usual, you are on auto-pilot when it comes to Obama.
The home grown killing rampages around the country have me far more worried.
Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.
Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/In recent years facts have supported Republicans much more than they have Democrats. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the IRS scandal, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Democrats is flat out lying, which works well on the LIV.
Male voters like Republicans better than Democrats for virtually every type of masturbatory fantasy. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1333754391&comments=1
OK, it's not original, but you're pretty good with sentence structure. Why reinvent the wheel.
Damn, I love that photo of Ann Coulter, with her Colt M1911 semi-automatic pistol sighted right on some poor bastard Democrat. (jk)
Rockin Bob
06-06-14, 23:33
What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.
When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.
Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.The Taliban are not terrorists, they're just religious nuts who want to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They're cut from the same cloth as the Christian nuts in the USA. Sure, they let Osama set up a training camp in Afghanistan but they weren't really all that good buddies. It was the United States that refused to negotiate with Mullah omar when he offered to expel Osama.
It's an American issue alright. Americans started the war, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what strategic interest that's supposed to serve.
The Taliban ain't doing nothin that anybody else wouldn't do when somebody invades their country. They're not terrorists, they're just fighting to have their country back.
Meanwhile, the real terrorists, Al Queda, seem more concerned with blowing up other Muslims. At any rate, the chaos that the USA has unleashed in Iraq, Libya, you name it just gives them all sorts of opportunities to exploit. Ah well, at least we all know now that some Arabs are Sunnis and some Shiites.
By the way, Saddam Hussein had no great love for Al Queda either. Should have just left him in power. Like George Bush senior did after the Gulf War.
Seems nobody remembers Vietnam. Nobody learned a lesson from that? A lot of blood shed on all sides and money right down the toilet, a war that destablized the whole region (remember Pol Pot? And for what?
Freedom and Democracy, I forgot.
The Taliban are not terrorists, they're just religious nuts who want to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. They're cut from the same cloth as the Christian nuts in the USA. Sure, they let Osama set up a training camp in Afghanistan but they weren't really all that good buddies. It was the United States that refused to negotiate with Mullah omar when he offered to expel Osama....The Taliban ain't doing nothin that anybody else wouldn't do when somebody invades their country. They're not terrorists, they're just fighting to have their country back.
Bob, The Taliban were a project of the Pakistani intelligence service / army and Saudi money that got out of control. They were supported only by part of the Pashtun population. They fought with and persecuted other ethnic groups, and even other Pashtuns. Characterizing them as freedom fighters fighting off foreigners invading their country doesn't make sense. Comparing them to American Christian fundamentalists is crazy. The Taliban systematically massacred and starved people. They sold women into sex slavery, and beat, suppressed and stoned them.
However, while I usually believe Punter's analysis is spot on, my position on USA involvement in Afghanistan is probably closer to yours than his. We should have done like Bush Senior did in Iraq. Force them to turn over Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, decimate Al Qaeda's bases, and then leave. Instead, Bush Jr. And Obama stayed on and tried to nation build. This has resulted in loss of life, goodwill, and lots of the taxpayers' hard earned money.
What I don't understand is why Democrats with similar views to mine continue to defend Obama on his policies in Afghanistan. Why have we been there for 12 years now? MANY more Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama's watch than Bush's. Democrats seem to mindlessly support their man, no matter what his positions. While Obama is not as corrupt as Edwin Edwards, the prominent Louisiana Democrat governor who was re-elected even though everyone knew he was crooked, there's an analogy. As long as you buy off people with free money, they're going to vote for you unless you're caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Your abilities, common sense and position on the issues won't matter, as your supporters will brainwash themselves to believe you're always right.
When Esten starts talking about Fox News and quoting Charles Krauthammer without saying anything derogatory you know he's desperate and in panic mold. It's very revealing that he attacked Lieutenant Colonel West, but did not address his message, and he failed to mention that Krauthammer also said "court-martial him to the fullest extent for desertion". Panic mold, that sounds scary. Guiliani said Dems were panicking too, and it was just as laughable with him as with you.
There are obviously many elements to this story, but Obama usually has pretty good judgement (not perfect), and he knows far more about this situation than the right wing armchair quarterbackers, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you may have noticed, I haven't been strongly supporting or condemning the action taken. I agree the military should get the facts and deal with Bergdahl accordingly.
The latest information indicates Bergdahl may have been killed if there was any leak of the deal. Obama probably trusted Feinstein, but he would have had to inform Chambliss as well (or there would have been another controversy), and Obama probably didn't trust the Republican to keep it mum. That's my take.
What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.
When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.
Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.An American issue, riiighhht, that's why you're posting far-right negative articles from Allen West and Newsmax. BTW, Newsmax is not a reliable news source.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of wannabe terrorists out there, I doubt five more really changes the equation. BTW, another reason I'll trust Obama is there is probably a backstory here, an assessment that some limited agreement with the Taliban, even giving them some limited "win" in the swap, is going to diffuse some tension and create a better environment for peace talks in Afghanistan.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.