|
Post by conservative on Aug 29, 2015 17:01:43 GMT -5
Swift punishment and social condemnation of people who commit crimes against others are the sure-fire options that work to minimize evil. What we do now is working against innocent, real people. Leading with empathy, sympathy and excuses for those that commit violence, most of the time repeatedly, is now the media's P.C. norm. The news crew killer is the latest example of an anti-social idiot that fed off of our need to excuse and ignore aberrant behavior. I'd like to know how this young adult hadn't had the fear-of-God and punishment burned into his brain by parents, extended family, friends and strangers as he blazed life's tail as a failure while reportedly abusing everybody he came into contact with. The media went directly to the crying-towel by assuming he must have been mentally disturbed and somehow not responsible fore his actions. There was no holding back on gun owners as somehow sharing blame vicariously, because, of course, guns are by definition the root of the problem. If only Liberals could force us to turn in our guns and allow armed Government employees to impose any and all proclamations to a then subservient public. Only then can Utopia result by fiat. No, this latest shooter and most of their kind are not retarded or brain damaged, they're evil. They want what you have. They respect no laws or civil rights. It's time to again hold people continuously responsible for their own decisions and actions without blaming racism, poverty or bad luck. We can be caring and concerned about the less fortunate or successful among us and still expect them to observe others rights. People have the right to be perpetually miserable and the opportunity to change their situation but should not be described by the media as having been failed by the rest of us for not saving them from themselves. The news is now full of sensational and continuous violent crimes committed by a relatively small subset of anti-social, evil people that are given excuses. Why do we tolerate this?
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 4, 2015 10:26:13 GMT -5
Read: www.atr.org/taxpayers-fleeing-democrat-run-states-republican-onesHere's a great example of our political system operating as designed; citizens moving from State politics you don't like to another one you like better. The Federal Government is doing everything possible to negate this competition. How soon will there be an organized, Government supported plan implemented to redistribute political liberals (emphasis on political)from Blue States to Red ones in order to cement a Democrat one-party-rule dream. Or is it already started? Of course it has, but like herding cats, it's easier to say than do. As long as voters have disparate choices and vote their pocketbooks and personal futures, there will be a chance to advance the American Dream. This election cycle appears likely to be that referendum. Why else would Trump, Carson and Fiorina be capturing the interest on the Right vs. Hillary (in the face of her past and current baggage)on the Left. This is truly Good vs. Evil at play. Center, wake up and save us all.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Sept 5, 2015 8:17:46 GMT -5
Recent Dow Comments: August 24: “The market opened at 15,400 and is now trading around my target of 15,700 to 15,800. The market is in panic mode, but should start to stabilize.” August 26: “The more detailed you get, the harder it is to predict. There is a lot of dooms day talk out there now. Gosh, I just don't see it. Gold is lower, a sign of stability. The dollar has firmed, a sign of stability. Interest rates (while controlled) don't seem to even want to raise a bit. All that is a sign that money is following into the US. Not a sign of flight that would precede a big decline.” Stocks are OK. I’m not a long-term bull because prices are so high, but the market held support, the economy is accelerating – hiring continues, auto sales are near a record, and housing is rebounding. Recessions don’t occur when autos and housing are growing. Plus the US is stable (firm currency, low interest rates, and weak gold prices). Minimum the Dow should trade up to 17,355. It would not surprise me if the Dow makes an all-time high above 18,351. As the market goes up, you want to be getting out, because that is probably the last rally for a while now. If the market does retest the low, 15,313 should hold. The economy has a lot of long-term structural problems that will get us in long-run, but with all this money having been printed and the economic cycle, all that has been swept that under the rug for the short-term. The economy should continue to grow into 2016 or 2017. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Sept 9, 2015 6:50:17 GMT -5
The Petrodollar System: The US dollar used to be gold. US economic strength and its currency with a backed by gold guarantee made the dollar the world's reserve currency. When countries saved money and transacted international business the US dollar was often the currency of choice, because it could always be redeemed for gold. When the US tried to print its way out of the 1960’s and early 1970’s Vietnam war effort, the US dollar started to fall, and all of a sudden the world started to cash in its US dollars for US gold, and the US started to bleed its gold reserves. The Nixon administration stopped the bleeding by dumping the gold guarantee (went off the gold standard). To keep the world from dumping US dollars with the gold backing gone, Nixon struck a deal with the Saudis. The Saudis would sell their oil in US dollars only. In return the US would protect Saudi Arabia militarily. Other oil exporting nations in the Middle East signed on to the same deal, so Middle Eastern oil could only be bought in US dollars. This then became the world standard. Most exporters today only accept US dollars. When Middle Eastern countries agreed to the deal they also agreed to not sell those US dollars on the open market, but they agreed to invest those dollars in the US or buy US bonds with them. Additionally, to get dollars to buy oil, many countries developed export markets to the US. For instance, Japan developed export markets to the US (TV’s and cars), receives dollars from US importers and Japan then uses dollars to buy Middle Eastern oil, which it is a big importer of. All this strengthened the US dollar and the dollar kept its place at the world's reserve currency even though the US went off the gold standard. By the way, this high worldwide demand for US dollars allows the Federal Reserve to print all this money and the dollar doesn't tank or inflate. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush 41, Bill Clinton and George Bush 43 all supported the system to various degrees by backing Middle Eastern nations with US military might. The US has like 45 bases in the Middle East in various different countries. President Obama is showing the Saudis and others in the Middle East, he really isn't going to have their back, and this is threatening the Petrodollar understanding. If Obama tells them, hey you are all on your own, why should the Saudis or others Middle Eastern oil exporters continue to insist their oil be purchased only in US dollars? Middle Eastern oil exporters could flush the US currency/ economy down the toilet tomorrow just by saying we will accept only Euros for our oil exports. What Obama is doing here is quite dangerous in my opinion. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 11, 2015 9:29:27 GMT -5
money.cnn.com/2015/09/10/investing/china-dumping-us-debt/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-domOne doesn't have to be financially sophisticated to know debt matters. In the case of America, who does it matter too? As weird as it is to have Trump in the early lead during our primary season, it's titillating to think about a leader who might know a little about money and it's value. Can a man who has created great wealth for himself and many more influence a Government that prints money and thinks it owns and creates our economy? I'm not ready to vote for Trump (yet), but does anyone doubt that he could lead by forcing long ignored, important issues on Congress and make them reveal themselves to their voters? Things like The Debt, immigration and the level of America's power to influence on behalf of American citizen's prosperity? I'm fantasizing that's what he wants to do. The President running more than the executive branch isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Sept 12, 2015 10:33:04 GMT -5
In other news this week, Donald Trump announced that he has bought NBC's share of the Miss Universe pageant, making him the sole owner of the annual eye-candy sale, and has offered to pay up to $2 billion for a controlling share of the White House ... (I made that last part up, but it's certainly plausible.)
Seriously, does anybody think Donald Trump could forge any sort of working relationship with a Congress filled with its own share of ID(iot)s, EGOs and SUPEREGOs?
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 12, 2015 13:46:04 GMT -5
I'm not (yet) Trump voter, but yes, he could have relationships with anyone he wants something from (think L.B.J). If nothing else, he's a master salesman with relationship skills. It's his core beliefs I'm not sure of. So far, I like his nationalist fervor. Why can't we put American Citizens first and everyone else fighting for second on down? We could ignore some countries before we invade them. We could be more feared to punish countries that move against our valid interest and national security. We could make civilians in those countries unable to hide/protect combatants. Trump has been speaking out about military readiness/capability importance (as we watch Obama put them in the back of the bus. Trump has hit on distinct hot buttons of nationalism. He has put our burgeoning debt front and center. The RINO's, Liberals and MSM are aghast at Trumps Brashness and confidence in the face of political correctness. Now is a good time for that. Let's see if Trump has another gear now that he's got everyone scared and all oxen gored. Personally, I'm hoping for a POTUS like a Trump. I'm sick of the go-along-to-get-along political style of our foreign policy and the make-every-one-equal (except better/smarter/more deserving Government bureaucrats and politicians) leading our domestic policy. Of course, I'd think differently if I had different information. Something other than what I read, hear and see.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Sept 12, 2015 18:18:45 GMT -5
Gerald's point is my biggest concern with Trump. He is used to controlling people through wealth. He has more wealth than others, so is in control more often than not. You saw that with NBC and the pageant. In politics, about 535 others have similar power. He won't be able to just buy them, so he'll need to work with Congress, and Trump has never developed the skills to do that. He didn't have to. I think he would be very unsuccessful as President. Fiorina I can see is throwing some punches back saying Trump is an entertainer and she is a leader. She is a leader? At HP most believe she didn't do a good job. She was thrown out and then lost a US Senate race. She may be a leader, but a successful leader on the top shelf? I don't think so. I don't think either Trump, Carson or Fiorina are qualified for the job mainly because of their lack of experience in government. Moving a company where you have supreme control and moving a government where half the people with half the power disagree with you is a completely different story. All three should run for lower office, win, and prove they can move government to the right, and then run for the top job. Here is a good story on Fiorina. americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/05/04/president-fiorina-how-carly-did-at-hp/
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 13, 2015 9:30:53 GMT -5
Points well taken. From the USA HP/Fiorina story link:
"She created a larger company — with more debt. Wonder how that would work in government?" Wonder? Does this writer realize this sentence describes the Federal Government during Carly's HP tenure to the present and planned future?
“She destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost $100 million in total payments for this destructive reign of terror.” Doesn't this apply to many (maybe most) of our D.C. based politicians and bureaucrats? Gore, Hillary and Obama sit atop this heap.
I'm not naïve enough to believe Trump is the next Reagan turn-around possibility. But he has added necessary bullet points to the national conversation. Timing is everything for leaders. I think we are in a time requiring a yet unknown force to change American Politics. I want it to be based on shrinking the size, domestic power and cost of the Federal Government. A bookkeeper can't do it. An appeaser can't do it. Only a leader selling a vision with nationalistic passion that voters want and believe can do it. I think it has to be aimed to individuals at the expense of any collective. Ever person in any voting bloc is an individual. America, in many ways, felt to be lower in confidence in the 70's than now. Reagan was the singular leadership that moved the Country towards national confidence. Is Trump that leader? Only he knows. We have a dozen Republicans vying to be POTUS. Why Trump and Carson in the early primary lead? Why is Hillary ensconced on the Dem side, given her lackluster record and reputation? This is going to be a "war" that will chart the course for the next 20 years. Our present future is on the down slide, who is challenging the stasis quo?
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 15, 2015 11:42:53 GMT -5
Read: www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-wall-street-reaction-213614Disclaimer: I'm not fixated on Trump. But I am wondering why he is attracting a significant populist segment. His TV crowds look like me; normal. The hot buttons he's pushing are important and not easily ignored, even by the Liberal press. I've seen moments when commentator's recognize this before quickly resuming the aloof, snarky attitude required to be above it all. The link above helps define the battle lines being drawn. The financial and career political class vs. regular working Americans. MSM is labeling the latter as the uneducated, uniformed angry class. The former appears to know what's best for the rest of us. Based on the trajectory America is on, what makes them right? More debt, declining labor participation rate, increased and less regulated immigration, higher welfare spending, less personal responsibility and increased victimhood status? We need a bigger, more expensive and more intrusive Federal Government to make this happen. Trumps crowds are saying no when he asks. The other side just scoffs at the "unwashed" with disdain. I think we need a revolution of some sort soon, why not now? I'd rather see the political class go to war with each other before the people do. Maybe Trump will be the spark between now and election day. Bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Sept 18, 2015 8:03:44 GMT -5
The Federal Reserve chose not to raise interest rates yesterday. Monetary policy is so accommodative it is a joke. Force feeding the public credit that doesn't need to be any more in debt is harmful in the long run, but no one seems to care about that. This is what Banana Republics do -- their economic strategy is to just print money. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/yellen-may-emulate-taper-template-and-raise-rates-in-decemberIt will keep the economy growing into 2016 or 2017. As long as auto sales and housing is strong and growing, the economy is OK. At some point, these low rates becomes inflationary.
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Sept 26, 2015 22:09:47 GMT -5
The "Black Lives Matter" movement seems to have been at least partly countered by the "All Lives Matter" mantra.
Here's a simple question for discussion: Do all lives matter?
Unless there's some valid alternate definition of the word "all" floating around that I'm not aware of, the answer should be an unqualified "yes" or "no."
Think about it and ponder your own personal political beliefs before you answer. Let's see where this goes, if anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Sept 27, 2015 16:07:30 GMT -5
Do all lives matter? No, not to all. I think all should matter but to who (or is it whom)? Can you matter without consequence? I say no. Can politicians bestow a right to matter? Only if they can be aligned over others, creating "blocs". Of course, then you'd matter only occasionally. Do you matter after you've been created but not yet born? I guess my answer to "Do all lives matter?" is........it's a personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 1, 2015 9:01:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 8, 2015 5:06:47 GMT -5
Here is a chart that supports my last post. Residential construction as a percentage change. You can see it is growing with a positive percentage change over the last year, growing about 3%. The overall economy is growing about 2% to 2.5% driven by autos, housing and personal spending growth. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 15, 2015 10:45:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 20, 2015 8:36:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 30, 2015 7:53:19 GMT -5
Here is an interesting table. It is Federal government expenditures and revenues. George Bush 43 grew spending at a high rate. I think this why Republicans had enough of the Bush's. Two, Bush 43's largest deficit, was smaller than Obama's smallest deficit. Both deserve some credit in the sense Bush grew spending a lot, but his deficits were manageable until the last year. Obama has managed to keep spending growth slow. In sum, both weren't very good -- Bush turned a surplus into a deficit, and under Obama the deficits were staggering because he tried to spend his way out of the recession initially, when he should have been cutting spending in the face of falling federal revenue. The economy is OK now, so revenue will continue to grow and that makes things much easier. This new budget grows spending and uses revenue gimmicks like they used to all the time in the 1980's and the agreement relaxes spending caps that have kept spending under control. It was an agreement to put the budget behind them. They even re-instated the Import-Export Bank just to smooth everything over. They chose not to fight, but all get along and usually that means more spending and taxes/ fees. No reform once again, just do the same thing, and provide a bit more money to do it all. Just kick the reform on to the next Congress/ administration. Time is going to run out on these guys sooner or later because they have a slowly ticking fiscal time bomb in the budget. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 2, 2015 10:02:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 6, 2015 8:55:21 GMT -5
www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/the-day-kennedy-died/0/3387792I watched this on Netflix. I’ve watched numerous documentaries on JFK’s death, most re-hashing what we’ve all seen or heard but this did indeed have unique information. Mainly the interviews of the parents with the two boys right in front of the President’s car, and the parents with the boy on the other side of the street. Whenever you watch videos of the shooting and immediate aftermath, the shock the people are experiencing is always eye-opening to see. Many are just walking around Dealey Plaza like zombies as they try to process what they just saw. Not only those parents who were only 15 feet away, but those in the plaza who were much further away. Did I just see what I think I saw? To me, looking at it today, grasping the event has more to do with processing how JFK’s assassination marked the end of an era in our country – the end of innocence. I think Elvis Presley was the seed, but the true before and after divide in our culture was marked by JFK’s death to the hippie movement in the summer of 1967. That is, before the November 1963 to summer of 1967 period, our national culture was in ascent. After that period and since then it has been in decline I believe. It is also sad to see how depressed Jackie Kennedy looks in the White House. Clearly she was in a conflicting situation. Her husband cheated on her throughout their marriage. She knew it. She chose to say with him and perpetuate the Camelot lie to the American public her and Jack were young, devoted to each other and deeply in love. It was also the end of innocence in a political way, because today we have so many politicians who are trying to create phony images for the public in order to get elected and re-elected. I think a women of higher principles would have walked out of the White House like Jenny Sanford did when her South Carolina Governor husband was cheating on her. Again, the draw of fame and power was too much for Jackie to walk away from. Finally, if a person lacks the principles to be honest and straight-up with his wife and family, will he be honest and straight-up with the public? Before 1963, most all would have said, “No” to such inconsistencies in a leader. Today, such fatal character flaws don’t seem to bother the electorate. Hence, the weak crop of leaders we have and regularly elect and re-elect. Like I’ve said, our country is in decline in many ways.
|
|