At least this kid has an excuse… he’s a fuggin’ BABY!
OK, I’m going to need some help here. After posting last night’s piece on the stellar Paul Ryan, I came to a rather astonishing conclusion. Specifically, it appears there are still some iBankCoin correspondents who are leaning towards pulling the lever for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November.
Granted, some of our correspondents are Europeans and other like-minded (statist) foreigners, and therefore categorized in my taxonomy as “brothers from another planet.” I believe, however, most of that coalition refrains from participating in the discussion outside of “thumbing down” pretty much every comment I make. There are a contingent of regulars who have always leaned left, however, and it seems from last night’s badinage that many of them may take part in the mutual suicide pact which has tacitly agreed to give Obama four more years.
I take a second to “caveat” here that I may be wrong, and these fellows are merely pulling my beard and playing “Devil’s Advocate” with old Jake Sprat for a lark.
So I’d like to take this opportunity to inquire of the more traditionally “progressive” among us (and please, make your own judgment w. regard to status here), where do you all stand?
First question: do you plan on voting for Barack one more time this November, if you are able to vote at all?
Follow up query: If your above answer is yes, then “Why?” Do you believe you are merely “taking one for the team,” as a quasi-loyal Dem or do you believe that Obama still has work to do to cement the “change we’ve been hoping/waiting for?”
Serious questions for serious times.
My best to you.
100 Responses to I Need A Show of Hands
… I was starting to believe that these Forums were better off without you !!!
I ACTUALLY DO believe these Forums are better off without you !!!
Tell ya what … just to be sure … why don’t you disappear for ANOTHER 6 months !!!
Bye Bye !!!
… ya know … just to be sure !!!
So we can safely put Wacky Alf in the “No Comment” category.
Color me shocked.
I was going to pay my neighbor’s gardening service crew to vote for Romney (like me), but the economy has turned so bad, they left town here late 2011
Perhaps they’re speaking a lil’ more Spanish these days?
And despite their struggles with the Queen’s English, I’d warrant they’d articulate a better argument for Obama than Alf and Bruce have thus far.
I must have missed the stock pick here
no matter, enough with politics .. let’s talk god & religion
what I meant to say was – let’s talk imaginary beings & deities and falsified history/teachings and false-ideologies !
Sorry, you’ll have to get your own blog to talk Billy Meier dialectics
Thus far we’ve got 0-2 from the Obama supporters.
In case anyone doesn’t understand the Billy Meier references, here’s a little background on what Juice ‘believes’:
Meier maintains that his initial contacts with human beings from other worlds started happening in 1942, when he was just 5 years old, and continuing throughout much of his early life and young adulthood (1942-1953 with “Sfath”; 1953-1964 with “Asket”). Then, beginning in 1975 after an 11 year break from having and extraterrestrial contact, Meier says he began his official contacts (“official” in that evidence was to be provided publicly, unlike his earlier contacts, for which evidence exists, but was not actively made public by him), communicating both directly (face-to-face) and by telepathy with a core group of the Pleiadians/Plejaren, or Errans as he also refers to them (Erra being their home planet), who gave their names as “Ptaah”, “Semjase”, “Quetzal” and “Pleija”, among numerous others. According to Meier himself in the video documentary ‘Contact’, he says that the contacts began on January 28, 1975, referring to the “official” contacts which the investigation team was looking into at the time.
These visitors reportedly hail from the Plejares star system which is beyond the Pleiades and in a dimension that is a fraction of a second in the future from our own (an alternate timeline). These Plejaren have allegedly afforded Meier a more interesting sampling of evidence than that derived from most such encounters, including highly detailed photography, videos, multi-toned sound recordings, the temporary use of a weapon which he employed for trial on a nearby tree, and metal alloy samples.
Meier claimed the visitors charged him with certain informational and consciousness-raising tasks. As he undertook this mission, he met with a great deal of scorn and derision in addition to (according to his center) twenty-one assassination attempts. Some of these were allegedly initiated by hostile extraterrestrial entities and subsequently defeated largely through the intervention of his Plejaren friends. Meier was uncomfortable with the megalomaniacal associations some would attach to his role as a representative (such as use of the term “prophet”, etc.) but he undertook the effort nonetheless.
In 1975, Meier established the Freie Interessengemeinschaft für Grenz- und Geisteswissenschaften und Ufologiestudien (“Free Community of Interests for the Fringe and Spiritual Sciences and UFOlogical Studies”), or FIGU, a non-profit organization for the benefit of researchers into this field, and headquartered it at the Semjase Silver Star Center.
why thank you, good sir .. that would be correct, and I do not shirk from my support of Billy nor his message
feel free to download, for free, his “Goblet of Truth”, all translated except for the last chapter, 28.
However, if one believes in creator gods, idolized human being-deities, saints, demons, messengers of gods/tin gods, etc, this work is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe in self-responsibility, like all my good republican friends say they do, despite handing over their life to their god or idolized human, if they believe in that kind of a thing, then one may find his words interesting, applicable, true.
Or if one knows everything, is a know-it-all, a know-better-than, as some around here behave, then this work will irk.
Salome/Peace in wisdom.
What you say about GDX and the PM market? I dont like you politics but I do like your investment/trading analysis.
Sorry, this is a give and take type of venue. If you don’t “like my politics ” then you are going to have to explain why you– as a presumably intelligent, market interested individual– would rather stay the present course.
Your answer actually will help me develop my ongoing investment thesis, btw. If Obama is re-elected, I do not want to own any market equities, for example
We are inundated with politics everywhere else – let’s talk stocks here.
I am afraid you are going to have to suck it up for the next 80-something days or so. This is kind of an important issue, ya know….
Jake: I admire your enthusiasm on this topic. I am 65, self employed, and ready to get back some of that $80,000 I paid in social security taxes every year for the last 20 or so years. I don’t want Paul Ryan backing out of a deal I’ve had with US gov’t — I pay 80 grand a year, then at 65 I get payback. End of story for me.
Ah, at last, a brave soul! I thank you for your maturity.
Three things to consider:
1) Given Obamacare and its stripping of $716 bn from the Medicare program, that “deal” will be bankrupt in less than 11 years.
2) Ryan’s plan is actually a well thought out strategy to save Medicare rather than “demagogue and do nothing. ”
3) Ryan’s plan posits zero change for those 55 and above. For those of us younger types looking at a bankrupt system, that sounds like a pretty good deal for you.
Keep in mind, O’s position is to merely demagogue this issue. He’s counting on people taking the irrational view.
To be clear, Obama is not “stripping” $700mm out of Medicare. The reduction in Medicare is actually a reduction in growth over 10 years. This is accounted for by reducing payments to providers.
Ryan’s budget takes into account the same exact efficiency. Perhaps it’s not smart for Romney to demagogue the Medicare “cuts” enacted by AHC act?
Ryan’s budget may be well thought out for the upper classes of American society, however, it leaves many things to be desired. Simply put, any plan which would reduce Romney’s already low effective tax rate to under 1% is insane! I am all for tax cuts. In this case I don’t think additional tax cuts for the wealthy (or what are they called… ‘Job Creators’) will increase economic growth. The problem isn’t scarcity of capital (which tax cuts would help alleviate) but rather it’s uncertainty. Reducing taxes, as proposed under the Ryan plan, does nothing to address this problem. Currently, corporate treasuries are sitting on a glut of extra cash and I’m not sure how reducing taxes on the wealthy will cause cause corps. to put this money to work. Investment will occur when demand picks up. Demand will occur when consumers spend. Consumers will spend when unemployment falls. Unemployment will fall, when, investment increases.
You see my point.
Oh. And the Ryan budget doesn’t even balance the budget for 10 years! This is the new fiscal conservatism? If so, Reagan would be astonished!
How has that Obama budget looked like recently?
Oh, that’s right, they haven’t passed on in the past 3.5 yrs.
Devil, I agree with some of the things you say, and I’ve already stated my position on capital gains (yesterday, for reference). The less the cost of capital, the greater the incentive to risk capital for gain. This is basic economics and finance.
You are correct that investment is “held up” by uncertainty. Do you think that has anything to do with the attempt, by the US Gov’t, to “manage” on sixth of the US economy? Does it give you any pause whatsoever that the bulk of these self-appointed “managers” have managed not one thing in their lives, with regard to a business model? Does it bring any pricklings to the back of your neck that the $716 billion “Reduction in Medicare growth” called for by the Obamacare plan is not going to be passed back to the consumer to better his healthcare choices, or even used to reduce our overwhelming liability obligations, but rather to fund yet ANOTHER monolithic government program whose costs cannot even be quantified at this juncture?
Also, do you think the massive increase in Executive level regulation — especially in the fields of energy exploration and transmission — have put a crimp in the average investor’s outlook?
Again, it startles me that some of you actually DO grasp how a classical capitalist economy is supposed to work (Bruce and Alf excepted), and yet see the cronyistic, top down government management of the economy by Barack and the Chicago mob as the preferred alternative to sensible economic growth strategies.
It’s cognitive dissonance to a destructive turn.
I don’t think current economic uncertainty and the lack of investment is directly caused by the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Smart people are pretty certain that repeal of Affordable Health Care Act won’t magically occur if Romney is elected. At best, if the Senate switches parties, only a fraction of the legislation could be altered under Reconciliation. However, it’s doubtful that will even happen. Unfortunately most people either don’t understand this or they don’t want to admit the reality. Instead, they are duped into thinking that Romney, by fiat, will be able to repeal it all. Consumer sentiment plays a much larger role than ACA.
Am I happy with ACA? No. But, as they say, it is what it is– and that’s pretty certain to me.
With regard to the other monolithic government programs of which you speak (energy related), you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that restrained regulation, as long as it’s applied across the board, isn’t a bad thing (Please understand that I am speaking philosophically here and am not so naive to realize that all regulation is being applied equally) and all levels of society deserve protection. I believe that corporations must be free to make their profits, however, I don’t believe that a corporation should have a right to interfere with the well-being of society. If the Supreme Count wants to grant rights to corporations that only a few years ago were considered innate liberties of American Citizens (e.g. speech) than this metaphor is apt: a corporation’s right to swing their fist ends where my nose begins. Unfortunately– a concept on which not many corporations focus. I don’t blame them as their primary focus is to make money. I do want them regulated, however, so they don’t cause unnecessary and irrevocable damage (I like my nose, thank you very much!).
Investors want consistency and certainty. Perhaps rather than repealing regulation we should focus on making it consistent so the market can properly factor in the consequences. As long as consistency is certain– regardless of how regulated an industry is– economics will create inherent incentives for investment.
Lastly, beware how you shake the business manger stick. Mr. Ryan has not had, using Boehner’s definition, a “real job” nor has he run a business in his life. However, he seems pretty qualified to propose the world’s largest budget.
Cheers! ..and what the hell is going on with EXK?
EXK is a long buy, consolidating here. It’s done this many times, so take advantage whilst you can.
W. regard to your argument, I agree that investors want consistency so they can plan. This would inveigh against passing 2000+ page omnibus bill that greatly interferes with the actual market mechanics of such a large part of our economy. THAT, my friend, is what’s causing investor and consumer disintermediation, as business owners have no idea what the future cost of employment is going to be.
Two, I also disagree that large parts of the schlerotic document cannot be done away with, first by budgetary processes, and later by repeal. True, it’s easier to gum up a system with a wad of Bazooka Joe spit carelessly into the works, but there are solvents within the system that can dissolve those same barriers. Thanks to the Dems, we must be about that business almost immediately. For certain however, Obamacare is no “fait accompli.”
Third, with regard to the bizarre reaction of alleged “progressives” to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which only recognizes that “groups of people” rather than just “single persons” can actually exercise their right to free speech in the aggregate, I am somewhat baffled.
What do you think corporations are, anyway? Robots? Polymorphous animist dieties?
What is the New York Times? Is it not a corporation? Is it just a big self-aware printing press?
No, it’s PEOPLE. People with opinions. A corporation with opinions that makes trade on them.
Why in the Blue HayZeus would you think it’s okay for the corporate New York Times to be able to trumpet it’s political opinions whilst barring other groups of affiliated citizens?
Can we do away with the “received wisdom,” for a second, and give this analysis a little more thought?
Think for a second about why libs don’t like the idea of non-left corporations having the right to voice their opinion. They think “profit” is somehow suspect. As if everyone going before the gov’t in petition were not motivated by some point of personal gain or satisfaction? Seriously? Are they naive or merely corrupt and jealous of their accumulated power?
4th, I recognize Ryan has “never run a business,” but that’s why we have Romney. Moreover, Conservative Reupblicans (as opposed to the other kinds) want to restrict budgets and spend less. For that purpose, a business background is not as important (though it will help Romney, as he’s always dealt with scare resources).
Devil, I thank you for your comment, but you have to focus on the reason conserveratives believe smaller government is the only common sense path to freedom and prosperity. It’s for the same reason that we don’t need Paul Ryan to have business experience….
“Big” (top down) Government needs the private markets to remain alive, whilst the reverse does not hold true.
And before you get me all wrong, no I don’t believe in anarchy either. I do believe governments can greatly devolve, however, into more localized entities, without destroying our standard of living and rule of law-based system. I do not believe that sysystem, nor its freedoms, can endure under the strangling grip of ever larger gov’t.
Of course corporations consist of people.
But if they are people…then perhaps the people of the corporation should be personally liable when wrongs are committed and things go awry.
What I mean is …the primary reason for starting a corporation in law is so that the person starting, running, or investing as ownership in the corporation…is NOT personally liable for any wrong.
ie: things go bad the corporation must pay and if need be liquidated.
If corporations are people …maybe the law should change so that shareholders, and all of the people that work at a corporation are personally liable for wrongs.
Meaning..screw up and the corporation will not pay. But if you are a shareholder or an employee from CEO to grunt in the trenches..your home and personal assets can be seized and liquidated.
If corporations are people…this logic would follow.
All I am saying is the primary reason for a corporations existence is so that its employees and shareholders are not personally liable for harms and wrongs in law.
Just something to be considered. Obviously you can see the crazy town that would result.
What’s that got to do with the subject?
What’s more, what’s that got to do with free speech rights?
A corporation is separate from a partnership because of liability separation… it’s a legal construct to insure people can only lose the extent of their investment. It has nothing to do with first amendment rights, so why even bring it up?
Again, cognitive dissonance. The New York Times is a limited liability CORPORATION. Why can it speak its owners’ mind while mine cannot?
fuck-n-A.after 47 years of paying my fuckin ass off, all the sudden they dont want to pay up?they all knew this time was coming,so now it’s booo=hooo we dont have your money. i wont take that shit sitting down. FUCK 0ZER0.i didnt vote for him the first time,and certainly am not going to this time.
Z.., ‘God’ how I miss all your poignant thoughts during election year(Poli~forum)!
R.B..,i’m certain, too.
hope all is well,yes?
Tell..Suz..”HI” for me,plz.
i will sweetheart,i miss you guys and rb also.everything we talked about when he was getting elected has come to pass.i am not liking what this guy is planning. say hi to val for me,i keep all of you in my thoughts always……..chris
I hate Europe and their lazy way of life.
Europe is a nice place. I would not say “lazy” but rather ” deflated and disincented” by the State.
What did the peasants of feudal Europe have to look forward to, after all?
Vote for Obama? No way in hell.
I would not vote for Romney under any circumstance. While I am in some ways tempted to vote for him for the presumed tax savings, there are, in fact, more important things in life than money (believe it or not).
I may or may not vote for Obama…
If you are voting for “money ” then you might as well vote for the guy promising free checks to the masses.
Haha, well, unfortunately i don’t get my beak wet from those programs….otherwise i might.
I am thinking about giving up voting altogether, because to me its obvious where we are heading. We are going the path of, if not greece, then spain and italy. It is inevitable. The “people” will never willingly give up entitlements, so there is no use fretting over it.
Okay here goes nothing but I figure jake may like some input from a front line participant in obama care. I am a doctor, a pediatrician to be precise. I am also a resident. Why does this matter because it gives me several benifits of the future most people don’t have.
1) I see mostly poor Medicare/Medicare/teencare people
2) obamacare took full hold in the pediatric population already
So here is some facts. No practice in my city or any surrounding city will see any new teencare/Medicare patients anymore, leaving only our teaching not for profit clinic to see them. This is not only due to poorer pay most practices would go under if more than 30% of thief patients are this type but also the new form of outcome based reembursment we recieve. We are so backed up people have to wait weeks and months to see us for regular checkups.
I bring this jp to point out a flaw in how all this is approched. There are not enough doctors so giving everyone healthcare will change nothing. Now all you have is a.lot more insured kids who still can’t see a.doctor. the trillion dollars means 30million can say hey look I have insurance but good luck getting a.doctor who will take it so no change. This will be the same with social security they obama will promise a amazing fix but really do nothing untold.one day the whole thing colapses just like our medical system is doing now
I respect you offering your perspective as a doctor. If there are no provisions for increased supply of healthcare (either in docs or dollars) in a “fix” (no matter what it’s called), a splashy provision to “cover” people with “insurance” will only incur Soviet-style queuing problems.
There is no overcoming supply and demand. By increasing demand on one person’s services, without making provision for that person’s remuneration, all you are doing is stealing that person’s labor.
And all those smart people who want to go to medical school? What do you think happens to them?
And EVERYONE’s health care?
Again, thanks for your “feet on the street” perspective, and God bless.
Thanks jake, I for one really missed your posts while you were gone so glad to see you back.
I was rushed earlier a bit of a busy day. But I don’t like complaining without throwing out a few ideas for a fix. None of these are the end all be all but I have to say nothing will ever get fixed on either SS or healthcare if people won’t get past the political correctness our current political system.
One idea is to lower paperwork for doctors on average 45-55% of our time is spent on that. Basicallyto comply with legal requirements to prevent lawsuits. Tort reform woulf be a huge plus in increasing the supply of doctors by just reducing “defensive medicine” paperwork and freeing us up to see more patients.
Also slowing more ownership of a patients care such as health care accounts and cross state insurance policies ect will help increase compitition and reduce insurance premiums. As well as allowing high deductable accounts so healthy people will be covered for catastrophic accidents
None of this will fix it all but are real steps in the right direction sadly as with SS very few on capital hill are willing to have a real discusion
hey doc,you said it !!! tort reform. ozero had said,”the only reason why i am not going after tort reform is because too many lawyers would file law suits”. that is what came out of 0zeros’ mouth when he pushed his healthcare crap.here’s a guy,who is an attorney, but a scared cat type of attorney. he had to come up with something that was going to appeal to all the eaters out there,that “free” was gonna make it happen. he is a failed attorney at best. what attorney goes into the profession , that doesn’t want a good fight. barack0zer0,thats who.
I understand that the EMR systems are helping out quite a bit with the records/paperwork problem. Have you had that experience?
Well my program is currently converting to emr now. It is very difficult and takes a lot more time initially but I think down the road as people get used to it it will be better. Several possible problems are one cut and paste lazy work may be more rampid. That and the distraction factor right now I feel like I am more focused on how to make a note and not screw it up than my patient which is bad bit that should get better with time. The biggest problem is that since you just hit check boxes every patients note looks the same so it is hard when reading it to see what may or may not have been abnormal with the exam it gets lost in all the jiberish.
I am a young doctor though and can see how once the kinks are worked out it can help. Problem is I know of at least 3 doctor in My area that have chosen to retire rather than convert to emr so short term it may make things a bit worse
As a Canuck I can’t vote (but if I was a Mexican illegal I probably could…), but I think America has recognized that affirmative action has been tried and doesn’t work.
Watching the big O’s outrageous claims, stupid comments and complete and total ineptness will reach a crescendo in the next several weeks. Jumping the shark is beginning to take on new meaning amongst his supporters.
Quite frankly the US advantage has always been that failure was part of a process of growth, development and discovery. A minor setback. The current administration has elevated that essential part of a process to a rewardable outcome. The bigger the fuckup, the better you do under big O. In fact the President is example number one of this unfortunate turn of events.
I have been watching this clown for the last 4 years. In deference to those claiming his brilliance, soaring rhetoric, and incredible speaking ability, I have seen a weak, silly, unserious, lazy and inept individual discrediting his office and country.
He is done.
thats nothing.if anyone knows anything about his personal handler/advisor. the “amarosa”,if you will of the WH, valerie jarret.i have a buddy that used to work with her at the habitat……..enough said !!!!!!!!!!!THIS GUY IS A COMPLETE FAKE !!!!!!!!!!!
Ironic that this commentary comes from a Canadian, whilst our Dallas resident spouts innumerate liberal hosannahs, all the while living in one of the greatest cities in the greatest state in the Union, thanks to its conservative policies.
Were it not for the heat, and all that Cowboy (football) worship, I should think you’d want to switch places.
In looking at, and assessing, the candidate for the Republican ticket, I can only surmise that you favor him based on a faithful adherence to the party. How did that work out for you from 200-2008? I can want a stock to go in a particular direction, but it wont happen if I don’t have the proper conditions. The Republicans don’t have the proper conditions. Best thing to do is back off and wait for it to come to you. In this case, we may have another 4 years of horrid conditions in the marketplace. The conditions would then be right to toss the Dems aside for a full 8-year block. Do you as a hard core conservative really support this guy for president? Seriously? Wait for the right guy. We all know what happens when we have the wrong guy (RIP 2000-2008).
I see some of what you are saying, and thank you for your intelligent reply.
However, President Obama has decided, unilaterally, that he is going to use the power of the Executive to it’s greates extent since perhaps the time of Roosevelt and Wilson (both war time usurpers, I might add). This alone is bad for the country, as you would find were there someone from the opposite party in Obama’s place.
Moreover, one more Kagen or Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and we might as well pack the Constitution in lucite and use it as a paperweight for all its usefulness. The rule of law stands in the balance, and I believe that without irony or sarcasm.
As for Mitt, you know my feeling about him and about Romneycare. However, two things. One, I think Paul Ryan is the biggest thing to come down the pike for the GOP since Ronald Reagan. Having him in the proximity to the President — in the manner of a senior advisor like Cheney to Bush — can only bring good things to a nation that will face many hard choices in the very near future.
Two, I cannot let “the perfect be the enemy of the good,” because if we do not reverse some of these policies immediately, 2016 may very well be too late.
We are undergoing a demographic shift along with a policy turn here. “Becoming Europe” in such exigent circumstances is exactly the wrong idea.
Again, thanks for your reasoned response.
I will vote a career politician who collected social security checks until he was 18, earned a cheesy political science degree from a third-rate university, became a multimillionaire in office and used insider knowledge to participate in the gang raping of the markets during a crisis …when you become a registered democrat and attempt to burn down the Reagan Library.
The only quality that recommends him is his ability to look straight into the eyes of who ever he is talking to and seem like he knows what he is talking about. Obama is a liar; but, a significantly more intelligent one than Ryan.
All of this is moot, because Romney cannot win without Florida and Ryan ensures that he will not.
Aside from Dem Underground, do you have any actual proof of your statements?
And btw, Miami of Ohio is a pretty damn good school, not easy to get into (as contrasted with Ohio State, for example).
As for Obama being smarter, I guess I’ll beleive yesterday’s “poleaxed in the headlights” video before I take your quite possible partisan view of things.
I’d love to see them in a debate without telepromptage, however. I’d bring a lot of plastic sheeting, to deflect the spatters.
Oh, and Ryan also has a degree in economics. I know, antithetical, but still….
I was curious about where this “insider trading” calumny came from, so I did some digging.
I was shocked (not really) to find out it came from the poison pen of Matthew Iglesias.
You might be interested in the fact that the guy who was trading on insider info that day was a Dem Congresscritter out of Rhode Island.
Jake, I give you a hard time on here because of your unwavering beliefs. I admire them, but it also shows that your economics is shaped by your political ideology. Economics should be politically neutral and shaped by the best possible economic outcome for the country. Right now that involves large deficits and government spending to prop up a deleveraging private sector. The governments deficit is the private sector’s surplus, and if the government cannot run out of money, why not help the private sector out? Once the economy starts growing at a reasonable pace and private credit starts growing again can budget deficits and government spending come down.
So I am voting based on who I think will do less economic damage. Obama with his raising taxes on the “rich” or Romney with slashing the budget and entitlements. Both candidates have it wrong.
Ron Paul 2012!
We’ve been running massive deficits since the Dot Com meltdown. What have we gotten as a result save an increasing resemblance to Japan?
Your assumptions are all incorrect, btw. When I was in college, my politics informed my economics, because I did not know any better (that’s what the Potted Ivy League econ department will get you) .
As a working individual who quickly got experience in the real world (and access to classical econ texts, rather than Fabian-Keynsian ones) my outlook changed. Today, my economics are not shaped by my politics, but rather my politics are shaped by my common sense and knowledge of economics and finance.
One thing that is as basic economics as possible is that private sector (ie “classical”) economic growth is far more efficient than government-decided, politicall driven planning. This has been proven time and time again, throughout history.
There is PLENTY of capital on the sidelines right now that is being crowded out by a gov’t that has grown too large and authoritarian. People will only be employed (and demand increased) when that capital feels it safe to invest again.
Let me ask you a question, as you claim fealty to Ron Paul. Do you honestly believe that $900 bn in the hands of the private sector, spend and invested with risk and return in mind, would not yield a greater benefit to the economy than did the $900 bn “Stimulus” that did nothing but support bloated state governments and various crony “green energy” projects that created few if any jobs?
It appears you contradict yourself within your own reasoning. Dr. Paul believes in free markets, not gov’t interference to somehow “prop them up.” Look to Japan to see what such “help” has wrought.
Belated huzzahs on “The Other Night I Saw The Fly.” Well done in the extreme.
As to the political discussions here, you know they always generate more heat than light. Must agree with britepathos about Ryan. He is a boat anchor.
And yes, I’m still a Democrat, so feel free to discount any and all comments “out of hand.” As you and our long lost friend Boca discussed well into the evening years ago, I believe that Obama is also just a career politician with a Jackie Robinson narrative. But I expected much more from him in working to build a centrist coalition. I still believe that’s where most Americans are; not out on the extreme left or right.
During interviews on his show, Johnny Carson used to absentmindedly play with pencils that had erasers on both ends. Kind of a nervous tic. My Dad always called them “Alabama voting pencils.”
I want to take an Alabama voting pencil into the booth with me this November and erase both of these bad choices.
All due respect, but I couldn’t disagree with you more about Ryan.
He has that exceedingly rare characteristic of being able to tell people a hard thing without seeming a scold or a termigent.
And let’s face it, we are in for some hard times. I don’t know how you can expect a guy who chose to attemot a takeover of the US healthcare system over attending to our increasingly serious fiscal issues over a guy like Romney, or Ryan for that matter.
And again, I realize you live in San Fran and the atmosphere is different, but Idon’t know how you can claim we need more “centrist” politics and then advocate for the hardest left Administration we’ve had since Woodrow Wilson’s.
We need Calvin Coolidge again… another for more years of Woody, the Princeton Professor, and we’re toast.
If you are reading advocacy for the current president in my words, you are not reading for “the comprehension,” my friend.
Must I put this in iambic pentameter for you?
I would if only I had the time.
Creating a new, ill-defined healthcare “system” was an asinine thing to make a priority. And the “plan,” such as it is, is just not the way, though I agree that the current system has made the ER the primary care physician for millions who can’t or won’t take financial responsibility for their family’s health. Like Romney’s plan in MA, trying to force everyone to pay something toward insurance seems better than allowing a growing minority to pay nothing, leaving the rest of us to pick up their tab.
Obviously, the reality is that we’re going to be stuck with the tab anyway and already overburdened doctors are going to be even overburdeneder (sic).
The points in my last post were trifold, like some sort of breast pocket wallet:
1) Nice job with the “Other Night” post,
2) Political discussions on my beloved iBC usually devolve into Three Stooges pie fights, and
3) Between the two parties we are faced with two bad choices.
These points are well documented and irrefutable.
Also, for your info, we have moved from SF to a beautiful spot in MA. From what I’ve seen so far, the politics here make CA look sane. I think I read that the last THREE state treasurers have been indicted on felonies such as fraud.
We’re not too far out of the way next time you’re driving the family up to Maine, with a big pool for the kids and a big bottle of Pappy for Pappy and something more refined for the Missus.
You’re always welcome.
Are you living out on the Cape?
Some beautiful country. Friend of mine just got a place on Nantucket, would should have me polishing up my limerick skillz in no time.
Yeah, Mass politics are almost as wacky as San Fran. Here’s a test… if Nan Pelosi had built a career on saying she was a Native American when she was not, would she still be running neck and neck in a Senate race vs. a moderate GOP’er?
We’re actually well north of Boston on a few acres of woods. Kind of a 180 from our SF place, but we love it. Will look at a beach place in the next couple of years, but we’re still getting this house the way we want it. $pendy business.
Yeah, the Warren thing is sickening. Who doesn’t want to make credit card apps and terms more clear, simple and honest for consumers? The basis of a fine platform. But if you’re going to be the “clean up” candidate, you can’t start by playing dirty on your old job application. Stupid, too.
Pelosi never would have had to become squaw Always Surprised Face to get a job, however, as her old man is loaded.
Speaking of Ryan… can you guess who said the following?
““Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing. … He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion. … The president as you remember, came out with a budget and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing.”
None other than Bill Clinton’s one-time chief of staff, Erskine Bowles.
And yes, he was one of the guys (from the Dem side!) who, along with Alan Simpson, was tasked by President Obama to study ways to cut the long term deficit problems we faced and get us back on the road to fiscal responsibility.
The Simpson-Bowles bi-partisan recommendations were 100% ignored by the Obama Administration.
Not so much a lifelong Democrat as a man who despised the Bush years. Republicans who I am willing to vote for are few and far between. I will not be voting in this election because absentee voting in my home state is so much of an ordeal that voting between the two candidates is not fucking worth the effort. That said, I would lean towards Obama. Don’t get me wrong, Obama has no idea how to fix the economy, but he’s been light’s out on foreign policy. Where the Bush years yielded these occupations that have led to thousands of military deaths, the Obama years have yielded tactical quick strikes, and overhead support that remove much of the threat to our military. Now, if Romney is able to steer clear of any unnecessary wars, campaigns, and the like, then I’d be more than happy to serve under him.
I’m friendly with a large cohort of in-service and retired military. They almost universally despise Obama and what he’s been doing to the military.
Not sure the Afghani/Iraqi and Syrian people would agree with your take, but you are entitled to your view.
Personally, I think Obama has been at best superficial and remote with regard to foreign policy, pulling off the hat trick of pissing off our allies while truckling to our enemies.
But I could give a shit if he gave Alaska to Putin for Christmas, it’s his economic policies that are destroying this domestic economy.
What if he just gave Sarah Palin to Putin for Christmas?
That would make everyone happy, including Governor Malaprop, who has been pining for Putin ever since she first saw him… from her house.
Did you pull that one from the Trickle Down book of Made Up Quotes?
She and Putin would have some fine babies. Take-over-the-world type babies.
No to your first question
Sheeit, I didn’t know you had voted for his the first time!
Say Hello To “Four More Years” (Mittens-Ryan)
http:://market-ticker.org/post=210091 Paul Ryan’s Dissembling On Medicare
Yes, that scathing indictment will most definitely ensure four more years of Bozo gov’t under Obama/”North Carolina, Virginia, Whatevah!” Biden.
I will be voting Obama for the first time.
As a fan of yours, this shocks me! Care to explain your reasoning?
He’s seeking to export “the Detroit look” to the rest of the country.
u is a chump
My reasoning is “fuck you people, you wanted this.”
This is chess and I’m 6-10 moves ahead and know every push. Nobody is stopping this train; I hate to break that to you.
It’s got the words BOND BOMBER spraypainted on her side and is going full retard, off the tracks, into the side of the Tresury Department at 200 mph+.
And I don’t want a Republican manning engineer when it happens…
Let Obama’s dumb ass try and “community organize” his way out of this one.
The Solution…is the Problem, Part II
By Eric Sprott & Etienne Bordeleau
When we wrote Part I of this paper in June 2009, the total U.S. public debt was just north of $10 trillion. Since then, that figure has increased by more than 50% to almost $16 trillion, thanks largely to unprecedented levels of government intervention.
Once the exclusive domain of central bankers and policy makers, acronyms such as QE, LTRO, SMP, TARP, TALF have found their way into the mainstream. With the aim of providing stimulus to the economy, central planners of all stripes have both increased spending and reduced taxes in most rich countries. But do these fiscal and monetary measures really increase economic activity or do they have other perverse effects?
In today’s overleveraged world, greater deficits and government spending, financed by an expansion of public debt and the monetary base (“the printing press”), are not the answer to our economic woes. In fact, these policies have been proven to have a negative impact on growth.
While it hasn’t received much attention in recent years, a wide body of economic theory suggests that government policies and their size relative to the total economy can have a significant detrimental impact on economic growth. A recent paper from the Stockholm Research Institute of Industrial Economics compiles evidence from numerous empirical studies and finds that, for rich countries, there is overwhelming evidence of a negative relationship between a large government (either through taxes and/or spending as a share of GDP) and economic growth.1 All else being equal, countries where government plays a large role in the economy tend to experience lower GDP growth.
Of course, correlation does not imply causation. While the literature is not definitive on causation, it still provides strong evidence that more taxes and government spending as a share of GDP (except for productive investments such as education) is associated with lower growth.
One exception to these findings is the experience of Scandinavian countries. They have both high taxes and high government spending as a share of GDP but have experienced relatively rapid growth over the past 20 years. However, a significant share of their spending goes to education, which has been found to foster growth. They also counterbalance the large role of the state with very liberal, pro-market reforms and low levels of public debt.2
Debt overhang and economic growth
Even if one believes that temporary Keynesian-type fiscal stimulus, in the form of tax breaks and increased government spending, can spur growth in the short-term, these actions inevitably lead to larger deficits and higher government debt (see July 2010 Markets at a Glance, “Fooled By Stimulus”). As Figures 1 and 2 below show, the U.S. Federal Government deficit and debt levels are already at their highest levels since the end of World War II and the scope of future stimulus appears to be rather limited. According to our projections (which assume there will be no fiscal cliff), the U.S. federal debt will increase significantly as the deficit remains sustained and elevated. For many European countries the situation is even worse.
FIGURE 1: U.S. DEFICIT AS A SHARE OF GDP
FIGURE 2: U.S. DEBT-TO-GDP*
Source: The White House: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Sprott Calculations
*For reasons discussed in May 2009 Markets at a Glance The Solution … is the Problem, Part 1, we show total federal debt subject to the debt ceiling.
High levels of debt, or debt overhangs, cause more problems. Recent work by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (Harvard University) demonstrates that banking crises are strongly associated with large increases in government indebtedness, long periods of unemployment and, ultimately, some form of default. They identify a threshold of 90% debt-to-GDP as the trigger to a debt crisis.3 As shown in Figure 2, the U.S. has already passed that threshold.
The historical evidence shows that countries with large governments and high levels of debt have on average, achieved lower economic growth. Given the already high level of debt and deficits in most developed countries, it is doubtful that increased fiscal stimulus will really help the recovery. It’s clear that debt is the problem and the solution does not lie in piling on even more of it. The current debt situation, coupled with the increasing lack of transparency of politically motivated regulations and interventions, leaves little room for a healthy deleveraging of our economies. Here is what central planners have in mind.
Debt overhang resolution and implications for the future
Througout history, high debt-to-GDP ratios have been resolved through five channels:4
4.Sudden bursts of inflation
5.Steady financial repression and inflation
Clearly, number one and two are not working right now and, in some European countries, are actually negatively reinforcing each other. The U.S. is facing its homegrown fiscal cliff and political polarization makes its resolution doubtful. Number three seems politically unacceptable for rich, developed nations, which see default as the realm of developing countries. Sudden bursts of inflation are hard to contain and work only so many times as investors, assuming a normal bond market, demand higher interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. Moreover, with interest rates already at zero it seems that we are left with number five: steady financial repression and inflation. This terminology was first introduced in the early 1970s by Edward Shaw and Ronald McKinnon, both from Stanford University.5
They define financial repression as:
•Explicit or indirect caps or ceilings on interest rates
•The creation and maintenance of a captive domestic audience (i.e.: forced holdings of government debt by financial institutions and pension funds)
•Direct ownership of financial institutions and/or entry restriction in the financial industry (i.e.: China, India)
We are clearly living through a period of financial repression. The symptoms include:
•Artificially low interest rates in most of the G20 countries and commitments to keep them low for long periods of time combined with inflation, which results in negative real interest rates
•Large expansion of central banks’ balance sheets through the purchase of government bonds
•Basel III liquidity rules which force banks to hold more government debt on their balance sheets6
•Newly nationalized banks in many countries (UK, Ireland, Spain, etc.), which have drastically increased their holdings of government debt
•And it will only get worse…
Figure 3 below shows that financial repression can be observed within the holdings of U.S. financial institutions and pension funds, which have steadily increased their holdings of U.S. Treasuries since 2009.
FIGURE 3: HOLDINGS OF U.S. TREASURY SECURITIES BY DOMESTIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Source: Federal Reserve Flow of Funds
It’s clear that governments are preparing for more. A key component to erasing government debt through inflation is extending the duration (maturity) of one’s outstanding bonds. In a normal bond market, negative real interest rates make it difficult to roll over short-term debt at low borrowing rates (although financial repression and captive financial institutions certainly help to keep rates lower than they normally would be). Due to this tendency for short-term rates to rise with inflation, however, it is in the best interests of highly-indebted countries to issue the majority of their bonds at the long end of the yield curve. As Figure 4 shows, the US Treasury is proactively planning to increase the maturity of its outstanding debt (green line) in order to maximize its benefit from inflation erosion. In other words, they are capitalizing on the current flight to safety to set the stage for further financial repression down the road. The same is true for the U.K., which benefits from one of the longest weighted-average maturity of debt in the developed world. For Eurozone countries to do away with their current debt overhang they will either have to default (the least preferred option for political reasons) or use the good old combination of steady inflation and financial repression (feared by the Germans and the ECB central planners).
FIGURE 4: U.S. TREASURY WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY OF MARKETABLE DEBT
Source: U.S. Treasury Office of Debt Management, Fiscal Year 2012 Q1 Report
On both sides of the Atlantic, the largest contributors to the current crisis are excessive debt and spending. We are now at a point where additional government stimulus measures will have negligible, if not detrimental effects on the economy and long-term growth. Debt has to be reduced, not increased by more deficits. Central planners have demonstrated that they don’t have the discipline to implement the Keynesian model of surplus in good times in order to finance deficits in bad times. We have now reached the limit of indebtedness and need to muddle through a painful but necessary deleveraging.
The politically favoured option of financial repression and negative real interest rates has important implications. Negative real interest rates are basically a thinly disguised tax on savers and a subsidy to profligate borrowers. By definition, taxes distort incentives and, as discussed earlier, discourage savings. Also, financial institutions, which are traditionally supposed to funnel savings towards productive investments, are restrained from doing so because a large share of their balance sheets is encumbered by government securities. The same is true for pension funds, which instead of holding corporate paper or shares, now hold an ever growing share of public debt. Pensioners, who are also savers, get hurt in the process.
The current misconception that our economic salvation lies with more stimulus is both treacherous and self-defeating. As long as we continue down this path, the “solution” will continue to be the problem. There is no miracle cure to our current woes and recent proposals by central planners risk worsening the economic outlook for decades to come.
1 Bergh, A., Henrekson, M. (2011): “Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence”, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, IFN Working Paper No. 858, April 2011.
2 Bergh, A., Karlsson, M., (2010): “Government Size and Growth: Accounting for Economic Freedom and Globalization”, Public Choice 142 (1–2): 195–213.
3 Reinhart, C., Rogoff, K. (2010): “From Financial Crash to Debt Crisis”, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper #15795, March 2010. Reinhart, C., Rogoff, K. (2011): “A Decade of Debt”, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper #16827, February 2011. Reinhart, C., (2012): “A Series of Unfortunate Events: Common Sequencing Patterns in Financial Crises”, National Bureau of Economic Research ,NBER Working Paper #17941, March 2012.
4 Reinhart, C., Sbrancia, B. (2011): “The Liquidation of Government Debt”, Bank of International Settlements – Monetary and Economic Department, BIS Working Paper #363, November 2011. Reinhart, C., Reinhart, V., Rogoff, K. (2012): “Debt Overhangs: Past and Present”, National Bureau of Economic Research ,NBER Working Paper #18015, April 2012.
5 McKinnon, R., (1973): “Money and Capital in Economic Development”, Washington DC: Brookings Institute. Shaw, E., (1973): “Financial Deepening in Economic Development”, New York: Oxford University Press.
6 Bordeleau, E., Graham, C., (2010): “The Impact of Liquidity on Bank Profitability”, Bank of Canada Working Paper, WP#2010-38, December 2010.
I don’t plan on voting for Obummer, but I believe he’s going to win by a landslide.
Mitt had had no chance regardless of who he chose as VEEP.
Fantasy Island nice this time of year, Tattoo?
There is a very wild wild card. The fucktarded boomers may actually come thru for the grandkids. Even the most hardened self centered old fuck knows this will not end well. The wild card is the youthful Ryan. It may spur sanity in the boomers. Big “may” tho.
All the boomers are in FL … think man!
The boomers will come out, but the female ones will vote for Obummer by a huge margin.
I predict Obama by a landslide. 60%-40%
You are living in a dream world.
If something is built on a bad foundation, tear it down and rebuild!, don’t keep on trying the stupid balancing act that is doomed to fail
I would certainly consider myself “socially liberal, fiscally conservative”. I think we all know that the Obama administration’s strategy for economic improvement/growth (aside from the comical advance in stock prices) has been an abject failure.
Even with that, I’m really on the fence here. The religious dogma that underlies seemingly everything the Republican Party does scares the living shit out of me. I do not want YOUR (pl.) God in my life. I do not want the policies of this country affected IN ANY WAY by one’s belief in fictitious beings (because if that is the case, how, exactly, are we different than those ‘crazies’ over in the desert?).
Right now I feel like I’m surrounded by dog shit, and no matter where I go, I’m going to step in some. I know what you think I should do, but I need to know that “Jesus” isn’t going to be dictating a significant portion of our domestic and foreign policy for the next four years.
religion is like a penis
it’s fine to have one.
it’s fine to be proud of it.
But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don’t try to shove it down my childrens throats.
You would prefer they shove it down your throat, wouldn’t you, you old queen.
I believe in god as much as the Easter bunny but I’d much rather have the conservatives in power. I’m for the woman’s choice to get an abortion if she wants, legalizing drugs and a buch of other ‘socially liberal’ ideas but am and always will be a proponent of smaller gummint. Over regulation does not work, no matter how good the intentions. There will always be stupid fucks and smart shysters figuring out ways to fleece them of their money. The public school system (for the most part), the post office, Amtrak etc are all prime examples of how the govt fucks things up. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc are not solving anything but only bloating the already over laden public sector. Trim that bitch down to size!
I am DMG and I approve this message.
DMG, for you & your kind, who self-deceivingly attempt to raise themselves up though stamping their fellow human beings into the ground through the juvenile practice of debasing another and in the process make Losers out of themselves.
Very many human beings want to see themselves as victors always at the cost of others, which is why they are wild about arrogantly assessing others and finding and seeing errors by them which they themselves also have, but are too cowardly to admit to these themselves. However with this, that they see the errors only by the fellow human beings and maliciously talk about and assess them, they erroneously believe that they could show how great they are and put themselves in a better light. But how they thereby deceive themselves and cut off their noses to spite their faces, is something that they, in their foolishness, are not capable of comprehending.
Now, fact is, that many human beings want to make themselves great and raise themselves up through the debasement of another human being in order to appear more than they really are. A wanting to be better as well as an errorlessness are demonstrated by accusing others of errors, although the accusers themselves have, as a rule, enough skeletons in the cupboard and would be better sweeping away their dirt from in front of their own doors.
Fundamentally, the accusation of an error for the pure debasement of the fellow human being is a lousy and nasty method in order to be acknowledged by others who fall for these machinations. And unfortunately, it is actually so, that nastyand lousy human beings of this kind believe themselves to be great, strong and successful, if they can accuse others of errors and can stamp them into the ground. In their abnormality they can only prove themselves by insulting,harming, lovelessly treating and debasing others. A human being, however, who is really good, peaceful, and free in himself or herself, harmonious and equalised, doesn’t have to confirm that himself or herself through unfine anddignityless words and deeds, or have this confirmed through the fellow human beings. A true human being doesn’t have to put his or her humaneness, honour, deference and dignity in the limelight at the cost of others.
If a human being is, in abnormality, dependent upon inflicting defeats and debasements on other human beings in order to prove himself or herself and to be seen as a winner, then he or she can never be a true and real victor. The truth is namely that such a human being is an absolute zero and is dependent on those whom he or she stamps into the ground and sees as losers. If, for such apparent winners and victors, there were no fellow human beings, whom theycould erroneously consider as losers, then they also could not believe themselves to be victors. To be a victor over a loser is nothing more than an irrational delusion that forms itself in sick brains, because a true victor possesses the greatness not to require a loser for his or her victory. Thus a real victor is a human being who does not need any other human being as a loser in order to emerge as a victor. A real victor needs only himself or herself, his or her ownpower and energy, his or her intelligence, his or her thoughts and feelings, his or her true love, the inner freedom and harmony as well as his or her equalisedness and his or her real peace in himself or herself as well as in relation to his or her entire environment. A human being, who through all the good values achieves a victory against and over himself or herself, never has the need to attack fellow human beings, to fight against them, to discriminate against them, to insult them and to debase them. And for a human being who is a true victor in this sense, there never is a necessity to have to defend himself or herself against verbal, slanderous and lying attacks of aggressive fellow human beings. This is not a helplessness, but rather the way of the pure rationality and love, because a desire of the revenge and retribution shall never arise, because these unvalues create again evil, revenge and retribution. Thus also anxiety, anger and rage as well as self-pity shall be avoided because these do not lead to the victory but to the losing.
More Billy Meier acid tripping?
DMG – Unless you are still a teenager and even if you are, I’d suggest for the good of your inner & outer world, that you make an effort to grow up and out of your puberty consciousness, particularly as your body grows older and takes on the form of adulthood. If not, you will pay a heavy price for your being stuck in adolescent thought & feeling forms, its apparent stagnation of your inner nature, leading ultimately to degeneration, sooner or later.
Yes, when you become a full “Adult,” DMG, you too can engage in passive aggressive behaviour like the Juicester, and thereby claim “noblesse” whilst pushing the nastiest vitriol.
“Do as i say, not as i do.”
ooh , i missed this pearl .. of jakes passive-aggressive noblesse pseudo-intellectual noise … the King Human Debaser of the nastiest vitriol makes another attempt at reclaiming his crown from mini-jake, DMG
Yoooogggiiiiiiii – Just got my Rasmussen Reports email of the day. Looking goooooood…
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Romney 47%, Obama 43%
Majority of Adults Believe Parents Should Have Choices About Children’s Schools
Ohio: Obama 45%, Romney 45%
I voted Obama in ’08 thinking he would be able to work the middle and get something accomplised with both sides, however he has proven himself inept to make proper business decisions as commander in chief of this great nation.
I will NOT be voting for his reelection. And I come from a very important swing state.
But if he does get reelected, I will not trash him and vow to leave the country.
… you goin’ with Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul ???
Alf, if Obama wins and Texas goes independent (again), you gonna stay?
… leave Texas ?
What ? And miss out on another possible Kinky Freidman run at the Governorship ? You gotta be kiddin’ ! LOL
If I ever leave Texas it will be to escape the almost intolerable Summer heat … NOT politics !!!
Just sayin’… they may have to afix a Scarlet “D” to your new Republic O’ Texas Passport.
I like Gary Johnson, but unfortunately voting for a third party is like not showing up to vote… so Mr Romney it is.
… I think it was a damn shame that Roemer and Johnson were not allowed to participate in the primary debates !!! They allow The Three Stooges … Perry, Cain & Bachman on the debate stage … and not those two guys !
Every time I got a chance to hear Buddy Roemer speak I was left with the feeling of wanting to hear more … and yet he was excluded from ALL 23 televised GOP debates !
He ran a campaign in which he accepted NO contributions over $100 !
NO PAC money !
NO Super PAC money !
NO Lobbyist money !
The man was squelched ! Hell … he couldn’t even get on the ballot in all 50 states !
Sounds like he needs your vote, Alf. Maybe you could give the communism a rest this cycle?
… YOU “sir” (and I use the term “sir” loosely) …
are an unmitigated, pompous PRICK !!!
I wish you could see my hand Jake. There was a time when I thought you had something to add to the conversation of stock picking/advice. Sadly, you’re just another frustrated Teabagger who can’t get beyond the loss of the last election and not being able to have your own way. Like a spoiled, petulant child, you can’t seem to function beyond your anger, and are unable to provide the one thing you are here to do, which is comment on stocks. I have to agree with Alf44, this space was better without you.
Your words betray you, just fyi.
Save your homoerotic slurs for the Yahoo! message boards. As for your opinion about whether this site is “better,” or not, with or without me, I’m afraid you’ve little standing in that regard.
Credibility is everything. Clean your act up and try again.
Voted for Obama last time, will vote for Mitt this time. Four more years of Obama will not solve our problems. I think Mitt may lose over his tax returns. Hard to trust him without disclosure.
When the more you want to retain some of what of time, the easier it will be to lose something. 1. Don’t say you have much good, others generally will not believe. Don’t say you have many bad, others will generally believe that. 2. In prosperity, our friends know you. The victim, you know a friend. 3. ShiFeiWo; People use mouth, I use the ear. Lively field; People forward, I turned back. 4. “unfortunately” is no one mulberry enter oneself for an examination of the university, but it from year to year recruit students, can graduate, it is strong. Once you have the feeling to someone, those feelings will always mulberry purses-accessories outlet remain in my heart, you may not like him, but you always care about. Less than the last moment, don’t give up. Sometimes, there must be in front of the elaboration, just mulberry have the back of the encounter. If you read this article, you won’t be brokenhearted!!!!! “Both men and women, only in your first love is after others, love yourself when you are in.” : don’t and shouldn’t etc, don’t hurt shouldn’t hurt heart. Some people, life is destined to be the traveler; Some things, often let mulberry us very helpless. Its sad tears, as calm face. Lonely, not necessarily not happy; Get, can not long; Lost, not necessarily no longer have. Love, let him free, Do not love, let love freedom. Look a bit lighter and less injury.