|
|
Post by conservative on Nov 6, 2015 19:22:37 GMT -5
I visited Dallas in the early 90's and stood in the Book Depository window used by Oswald and was shocked at how comparatively short (about 85 yds.)and seemingly easy the rifle shot was. The turn made by the limo became strait-a-way and presented the rifle sight with a target that appeared stationary as it moved away. It was well planned in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 18, 2015 9:09:34 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/17/jindal-suspends-presidential-campaign/I was disappointed that Jindal didn't do well. Like he said in his final speech, he wrote a lot of policy papers and no one was interested in policy. We are lost as a nation. We know where we came from, where we are, but have no idea who to select as a leader to help take up out of the woods. We tired a black person, maybe next a woman, and possibly a business man. It isn't any of that, but solid character and clear conservative principles that guide the person and the courage to implement those principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 7, 2015 10:43:35 GMT -5
The bottom line is, if the government prints enough money, you get economic growth. Job gains have been consistent now for years. See chart. I still think we have a lot of long-term problems, but in the short-term growth will continue in 2016 or 2017. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Dec 7, 2015 21:55:40 GMT -5
Macro and Micro economics have to share the same math but not the same value. Consumers, savers, producers and tax-payers understand the value of time, wants, needs, scarcity and sacrifice and live in the Micro-economic world. Governments exist in the Macro-economic universe where our values seem to mean nothing. Their operations run on the ability to ignore the present and near future by modeling projections far past controllable futures with tables and charts reflecting favorable, predictable assumptions as truth. Micro-economics is the present space and next destination of individual people and businesses. Government Macro-economics is the story of the aspirations of politician's attempts of continually re-inventing their perceived value far beyond the intrinsic one.
If I'm on-track, then Alex's projection is understandably believable as it jives with knowable micro-economics and allows us to ignore long term economics. My fear is our Government is running out of credibility in it's own more distant Macro projections and will (or has) become obsessed with taking control of our micro-economics, now believing it can both continue borrowing from distant generations while controlling the current ones with wealth re-distribution based on the wants of voting blocs. Removing the value of time, scarcity and sacrifice from Micro-economics will create serious unintended consequences. It's the present that shapes the future, not visa-versa. Our Government is operating as if they alone are creating the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 14, 2015 10:11:05 GMT -5
www.greenvilleonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/12/12/us-needs-more-checks-federal-power/77111704/I originally thought of this when I was jotting down notes when I called in to a local talk radio show. I then though about it all, and wrote a piece called "New Federalism" for my webpage. I then cut that in half and sent it to the Greenville News (700 word limit). They retitled it. One of the better things I've written lately. I wish some of our Presidential candidates would get on this idea that Federal authority needs to be reeled in through the Constitutional amendment process.
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Dec 14, 2015 14:34:43 GMT -5
Great read. Good thinking and writing. It appears we have a problem to big to fix. My latest "tell" is in today's Greenville News: www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2015/12/11/nearly-11k-greenville-apply-food-aid-after-october-floods/77164462/This innocuous story exhibits everything wrong with our Federal Government as an out-of-control machine openly wasting limited resources without fear of oversight or accountability. The reporter juxtaposes concern from an "insider" knowledgeable about deficiencies in vetting recipients of free food vouchers (welfare) aimed at 11 thousand potential Greenville County flood victims from a months-ago rain event. I won't ask "what good is free food now, so long after missed meals" or "was flooding that bad in October" as I thought that effected the mid-lands and delta portions of SC. The reporting ends with a DSS bureaucrat consoling taxpayers reading that no one will be investigated for fraudulent applications because no proof existed because it wasn't required. That would be expected in the hours and days after a disaster, but months later? Our Federal Government is not afraid of wasting our resources because there is no penalty to do so. If only Congress was required to debate budgets every year with only the taxes we agree to send, the process of prioritizing spending would engulf our representative government and leave little time or energy to waste our recourses so innocuously. This would solve a lot, including limiting terms in elected office. Maybe even bureaucrats would burn out and move on sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 20, 2015 11:59:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Dec 21, 2015 12:07:26 GMT -5
Maybe actual voting will clear the deck for serious vetting. It's clear that the media has been in control of the current political process. If you are ratings-worthy, you get the spotlight. Trump tapped into that early. He's no political neophyte but a D.C. outsider no less. Events shape our politics, with immigration and fear of terrorist, now at the top of voters concerns. I don't see Hillary pulling a needed margin of undecided, uncommitted votes in the presidential election if the current climate continues. If things settle down and the economy doesn't lay an egg, Hillary will be standing for the Coronation on the strength of her voter blocs now solidly with her. That's when the media again will flex their muscles for support of big-government.
The wild card is Trump. If he stays on message with "Make America Great Again" and immigration, he would be the only candidate that is dramatically different than Hillary. Paired with Cruz as V.P. running mate would at least give voters a dramatically different choice. Why not now as a referendum on the future? Leader-wannabes campaigning on who wants the bigger, more intrusive, controlling and Socialistic Federal Government guarantees the current American citizens lose.
But I'll admit to grasping at straws. The thought of Hillary preening in the White House is nauseating. It follows Obama's inertia very badly.
Last disclaimer: I like Carly and hope she ends up with an important role in a Republican government. Secretary of State or Defense. If she pulls out soon, Trump would warm up to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Dec 23, 2015 10:25:06 GMT -5
Even if Trump manages to get the nomination (IMHO, a nightmare scenario for Republicans), I don't see Ted Cruz accepting the position as second banana to a man who all but controls the bananas market at the moment. My impression is that when both of them get up in the morning, they look into their mirrors and think the world revolves around each of them.
In other words, I see either a cosmic catastrophe for Republicans if two centers of gravity drift too close to close to each other or (the safer alternative) a nice banana split - i.e., the Republican Party splits with its top two bananas - somewhere down the road.
It continues to amaze me that so many of my fellow Republicans remain so politically naive as to squander - yet again - an opportunity to gain control of both the legislative and executive branches of government in the same year. Then, and only then, could conservatives get most (but not all) of what we want. For now, the 50+ percent of Republicans who voice their support for Trump and Cruz - two men who really don't mind telling you what you want to hear and promising things they know cannot be done in order to get elected - are likes spoiled kids in the toy store. They want it all, they want it right now, and if they don't get it, they'll throw a fit or, perhaps, a Tea Party.
Launching one Republicans human wave assault after another against an entrenched Democrat stronghold won't work. That's called a suicide mission.
If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, he cannot beat Hillary. Our only hope is that Hillary will beat Hillary and Trump can win by default. But even if that happens, and Republicans then control the White House AND Congress, Trump is too much of a jerk to work with Congress, and we'll wind up looking even more dysfunctional. The slow death by suicide of our party will accelerate over the next four years.
God help us all.
(By the way, Conservative, I like Fiorina, too, but I'd like to see her in charge of the Department of Commerce. That way, if she can't dazzle 'em with her brilliance on economic issues, she can baffle 'em with her bull**** about the power of technology to solve every problem in the world.)
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Dec 24, 2015 9:44:12 GMT -5
geraldgarrett
I'll respectfully defer by age and experience to your political aptitude. Your points are well taken. My early and guarded enthusiasm for Trump harkens back to my youth and Reagan. Remember, the media and deciders did their best to paint him as a debutant clown ill suited for POTUS, despite, or rather because of his record in writings, speeches and Governorship in California. No one with lesser political judgment as you could have predicted the multi-generational positive effect his leadership inspired. Only the record numbers of voters energized by the force of his personality can take can take credit for their leap-of-faith in the "B-grade" washed up actor. I shamefully admit that when I now see any of his old movies, some line he emotes reawakes a lingering emotion to knock down a burning door and defend America against any socialist/communist. Instead, I just I pay silent homage to his role in enabling me to begin and stretch the American Dream from a H.S. drop-out through marriage, college and rewarding life.
I'm guilty of hoping history can repeat itself in the future. With Trump, there's room to fantasize that his "Make America Great Again" slogan coupled with his record of setting goals and achieving success in our American-Capitalist system in spite of his naysayers. Much is said about his fortune but nothing about the wide spread positive economic benefits he created. Never another Reagan, but is there room for another dark-horse America-loving candidate that leads with a goal of another generation's possibility of their own American Dream? A dream not possible if the Government defines and provides it, but a future available for those that dream and create their own unique path. Both Regan and Trump lived out-sized privileged lives. The similarity is in while doing so, achievements and leadership skills were revealed that average Americans respect without jealousness. Different from us but relatable. Better off but not better than. Juxtapose Hillary. Point made.
Of course Trump is not Reagan. But Trump is doing something the other candidates aren't. He's challenging the status-quo and politics-as-usual, maybe just in time. As a "never voted for a Democrat, never will" codger, any of the Republicans will suit my taste better than Hillary. But I'm stubbornly sure that history will reveal only Trump will force a change in attitude and direction in the world towards America, foreign and domestic.
I don't know politically more than most, certainly less than Gerald, but I am convinced that a sea-change is required before a total Republican majority could make a dime's difference. Today, there's just not enough respect for checks and balances in governance or acknowledgement the Federal Government is out of control and needs to do less, not more. Only Trump (add Cruz but not yet effectively) is running on Americans first. Why?
As for the V.P. Trump has not hinted. I like Cruz. I only suggested the combo because that would inflict the most irritation to the political/media class.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 24, 2015 17:32:33 GMT -5
I'm voting for Cruz, but I think GG point is a valid one. Trump has the right message but is the wrong messenger. We will see where the dust settles and the primaries get started. I do think more need to drop out of the race, like the bottom 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Dec 26, 2015 0:28:12 GMT -5
The right message? Really?
I was mildly amused at one of Lindsey Graham's parting shots last week when he suspended his campaign. While I can't find the exact quote at the moment, he said something to the effect that part of his failure as a candidate is that he refused to promise things that he knows are impossible to deliver simply to garner more votes in a primary or general election.
If either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz adopted that same philosophy, they really have nothing else to say.
Both men appeal to the angry, frustrated wing of the Republican Party. I must admit, I am a part of that wing purely from a philosophical standpoint. But from a practical, pragmatic standpoint, it's a losing campaign. I learned a long time ago that you cannot get everything you want, every time, and if you throw a tantrum because you don't always get your way, eventually NOBODY will work with you.
Fortunately, I learned that lesson a long, long time ago. Trump, Cruz (and let me add that potentially dangerous non-factor Rand Paul here) still haven't learned it.
For decades, we've mocked the Democrats for firing up their voters by stoking their fears. Republicans will cut Social Security and starve your grandparents to death, Republicans will take away your reproductive rights, Republicans will get us into more wars, Republicans will take away your food stamps, Republicans don't really care if you get bankrupted by health costs, etc., etc., etc. (There's actually some obvious truth to that last one.)
Both Trump and Cruz are now playing the same card, only from the conservative deck - and, like Democrats, there is no way in Hades they can deliver on their promises.
We deserve better from our candidates, but if we continue to elect candidates who are strong on bluster and short on substance, we'll actually deserve the elected officials we get. For once, I'd like a Republican candidate in the general election who is willing to tell us what we need to know, not what we want to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Dec 26, 2015 9:21:24 GMT -5
Interesting prose. The banter highlights why organizing Republicans is akin to "herding cats". Our Party isn't effective nationally when Democrats define the argument as "they want to love and provide and Republicans hate and take away what you need".
Lost is the fact that Republicans (should) simply want to "Protect" Americans; the unborn, the aged and infirmed, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, States Rights, fiscal relevancy and personal responsibility. We do well with local issues when we fight for priorities vs.limited resources. Privacy, security and property rights have real meaning. Federally, they mean nothing anymore. Permanent deficits and unlimited borrowing from generations not born yet has created career politicians and bureaucrats that think only in terms of national voting blocs addicted to national spending. Programs and policies never measured in goals and results, only growth and allegiance to (mostly, hopefully) Democrats. The national goal is One Party with very few in charge.
Paraphrasing Gerald, for once I'd like for the Republican party to lead all citizens to agree that we all know some things, hear us and start restricting Federal spending to what they can convince us to finance with limited fiscal resource's. It's time to lean on America's unlimited promise of freedom. It's all in the Constitution.
And for full disclaimer: No, don't touch S.S. (I'm near and paid up). Make abortion more rare, not a right. The current American war should be Americans First, then triage the rest of the world. Yes, take away food stamps (read this week's G. news about County flood relief benefits without flooding). Yes, bankruptcy is a needed civil proceeding to separate the last dime you have or ever will have if you owe money for any purchase or service you won't or can't pay for. After that, help (family, charity and government) will always step up.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 28, 2015 12:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Jan 3, 2016 12:24:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Jan 3, 2016 22:12:25 GMT -5
"Victors gain power. Proper leaders want what is best for the country."
The last line in the column is the most interesting for me. At the present moment in the early stage of the party primaries, Hillary and trump stand out in both polling and news media interest. I ask myself, which Candidates for POTUS want power and which want what's best for the country? Who is most pragmatic (guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory)?
The Real Clear Politics read reinforces my political feeling that Hillary stands out as wanting power through victory utilizing popular political theory that votes can be assembled in blocs based on greed and self interest. Trump epitomizes leadership by eschewing promises of government largess while emphasizing lofty goals of traditional American greatness, nationalism and prosperity through opportunity and freedom.
I want the "mob" to demand leadership and vote for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 5, 2016 19:26:29 GMT -5
Has America gotten to the point where our culture looks to Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner, to find out what womanhood is all about? Unfortunately, our culture has gotten to that point, yes. I would bet there are 150 million other women in America who know more about the trials, rewards, what if's, what about's of being a woman than Caitlyn Jenner. Yet, Caitlyn is being held up as the one with the wisdom and insight in articles like these. Another sign to me our culture is lost. I have no problem with the transition of Bruce, now Cailyn. I have no problem with any LGBT's. Be who you want to be. That is your personal choice. Just like I have no problem with people who never got married or are divorced. All sorts of things do and can happen. I was raised by a single mom. The question is, what should be the model that we as a society strive for and hold up? I'm sorry I don't think it is Caitlyn Jenner as a woman any more than I think those divorced should be the model for marital status. www.yahoo.com/celebrity/caitlyn-jenner-studying-womanhood-more-192100481.html |
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Jan 7, 2016 15:04:03 GMT -5
Well, the stock market continues to plunge today as I write this. Probably time to check the value of my Facebook, Apple and Enron stocks. I guess you can artificially inflate the value of pie in the sky for only so long before it comes crashing down.
Of course, all will be well on Wall Street, I'm sure. Macy's announced the closing of 40 stores and the loss of thousands of jobs today in order to restore "profitability." Excuse me, but wasn't Macy's already profitable? They just fell short of the expectations of Wall Street and continue to allow corporate greed to ruin one of the greatest retail success stories in history, in my humble opinion.
Other companies will inevitably cut thousands more jobs in order to feed the corporate Borg. Goals will be met. Wall Street will prosper. Meanwhile, those of us working stiffs on Main Street will continue to get crushed and brushed aside like nothing more than human trash. We're all just numbers on a bottom line to them as the American dream continues to live or die based on the whims and notions of a bunch of "experts" whose only callouses on their hands come from an improper grip on their golf clubs or tennis rackets.
Yes, Alex, I despise Wall Street, especially that part of it that has no clue about the struggles of the middle class, yet purports to have our interests in mind. It's one gigantic con game in the 21st Century.
It wasn't always that way, but times change. Sometimes, as we've seen with George Bush's "too big to fail" bailout of a bunch of greedy corporations who probably deserved to fail and with Obama's "fundamentally changed society" change is highly questionable.
The Supreme Court has ruled, in discussions over free speech and corporate campaign contributions, that corporations are "people." Maybe so, but in a "corporations are people" structure, Wall Street holds the mortgage, the board of directors is the landowner, the CEO would be the "master" and those in upper and middle management hold the whips. The rest of us just have to keep our heads down and keep singing "Swing low, sweet chariot" while thinking about "Shoot true, sweet Smith & Wesson." We're not slaves, for sure - that would be illegal. But our futures rest with whims, greed and callousness of those mortgage holders, landowners and masters, who care nothing about us workers other than how we impact the bottom line.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We have reached the stage in our history where Wall Street is driving our economy, instead of the economy driving Wall Street. That is bass ackwards unless you're a Rockefeller or a Carnegie ... or, perhaps, a Madoff. It's not time to "occupy" Wall Street. It's time to fundamentally change it to work for everybody. Unless, of course, it's gotten to be "too big to fail." I seriously doubt that, though.
"Swing lowwwwww, sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me HOME .."
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 8, 2016 19:00:00 GMT -5
The economy: I’m sticking to what I’ve been saying since about 2009. The peak in long-term United States GDP growth is long behind us, peaking in about 2000. Expect lower annual GDP on average with each passing decade. There is too much debt, government is too big and inefficient, the national work ethic is in decline plus many other structural problems. This lower growth rate is the new normal. Expect the slide to continue until the economy crashes sometime in the next 20 years. This is one of my favorite write-ups from 2005. www.pickenspolitics.com/alex_000017.htmIntermediate-term, GDP growth is on the upswing as this expansion is 6 ½ years old. No change, I think economic growth will remain positive into 2016 or 2017. The expansion is long in the tooth, so it is not the start of a lengthy economic upswing. GDP is 2%+/-. All this I’ve been saying a while and has been accurate. (Commodities I’ve been very wrong, but we’ll leave that for another post.) Adding to the theme, the world economy is slowly sinking for the same reasons, mainly due to too much debt, poor government management, etc. Japan has been in a malaise for 10 years. Europe’s net growth is flat the last 8 years and maybe the EU is growing 1%+ right now. Brazil the largest emerging economy is in free fall. Canada just came out of a recession. Oil producers like Russia, the Middle East and Venezaula are in deep recessions, and selling what assets they can to keep it all afloat. China and India is growing, but neither are the investment magnites like they used to be. The US looks relatively good so you are seeing a shift to the US and that is helping to boost US growth. The world economy is not sinking like Luisatania in 18 minutes – straight down, but it is sinking more like the Titantic I think. Long and slow decline with a massive twist first. Going down at the bow, so people rush to the back, just like investors are rushing to the US now (strengthening dollar and investments here). Just because the back of the boat is rising (and that is all some see), it is not what you are thinking – the start of another economic boom in the US. Likely it is this shifting that is going on, as the world economy slowly sinks at different rates in different places and money shifting around looking for the highest/ safest pont. This is all happening in very slow motion as government leaders do all they can to stop the slide underway. We could remain this way for years as the overall descent ebbs and flows. I would be surprised and very wrong if global growth at some point gets on the fast track. |
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 13, 2016 17:37:15 GMT -5
Commodity comments from Nov 13: I’m getting beat on my commodity index investment. I own it at 94 and it is at 83, but thought it would be back to my break even by now. Up to this point I've been wrong on this one.
Jan 13 Update: That Bloomberg Commodity Index is at 75. It is hard to be 180 degrees wrong in any market, but I managed to do that here. A couple things, first, I have to repeat I was dead wrong on this one. Two, commodity weakness (especially in industrial commodities) is an indication the world economy is slowing down faster/ is weaker than most realize. I still like my call that the 6 ½ year economic expansion is long in the tooth and this recent strength in US growth is not the start of a major up-leg in world economic activity. Three, oil has fallen more than anyone thought. That is putting oil exporters in recession, and they are likely selling all dollar assets (including stocks) to sure up their national income statements/ cash flow. (Remember oil exporters are paid in dollars and generally store their wealth in dollars. When their oil revenue falls and they need cash, they sell out their dollar investments and bring the money back home.) I’m surprised the US dollar has a good bid under it still; the rest of the world is so much worse off I guess.
|
|
