| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 2 3 4 5 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
| nikoschopen 2,824 posts msg #63448 - Ignore nikoschopen |
6/6/2008 8:29:08 PM That's a real typical RWN trash talk. Well, you conveniently forget that American taxpayers dole out $720 million every friggin' day to support the Iraq war that Bush and his cronies should never have started. According to the The Washington Post, that's large enough to buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity. So quit ure bitching, please! |
| johnnyvento 51 posts msg #63450 - Ignore johnnyvento |
6/6/2008 8:40:02 PM TRO, you have to be fucking kidding. What do you call a huge deficit? It's called a TAX on future taxpayers. A TAX that pays for NOTHING. Historically, the stock market has done as well or slightly better under D's than R's over the past 50 years. And who knows why you are relying on John Fund or Newsmax for anything, they have both been proven to make stuff up. |
| nikoschopen 2,824 posts msg #63453 - Ignore nikoschopen |
6/6/2008 8:55:55 PM It speaks volumes about how much he knows about politics! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #65301 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
7/21/2008 12:59:35 AM THOUGHT FOR THE DAY OPEC sells the U.S. oil for $136.00 a barrel. OPEC nations buy U.S. grain at $7.00 a bushel. Solution: Sell grain for $136.00 a bushel. Can't buy it? Tough s**t! Try eating your oil! Ought to go well with a nice thick grilled filet of camel @$$! |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #65302 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
7/21/2008 1:01:35 AM nikoschopen - Ignore nikoschopen 6/6/2008 8:29:08 PM That's a real typical RWN trash talk. Well, you conveniently forget that American taxpayers dole out $720 million every friggin' day to support the Iraq war that Bush and his cronies should never have started. According to the The Washington Post, that's large enough to buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity. So quit ure bitching, please! johnnyvento - Ignore johnnyvento 6/6/2008 8:40:02 PM TRO, you have to be fucking kidding. What do you call a huge deficit? It's called a TAX on future taxpayers. A TAX that pays for NOTHING. Historically, the stock market has done as well or slightly better under D's than R's over the past 50 years. And who knows why you are relying on John Fund or Newsmax for anything, they have both been proven to make stuff up. nikoschopen - Ignore nikoschopen 6/6/2008 8:55:55 PM It speaks volumes about how much he knows about politics! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) ================================================= I didn't say I AGREED with it. I just posted it in the appropriate thread. Too me, the government is too big and the REVOLUTION is long overdue. But there won't be a revolution. People in this country are way too passive. The news media would call you a terrorist or traitor. Now, before you start with the AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, B.S., I say, "AMERICA, LOVE IT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT BETTER". When you have to pay the government about 50% of what you earn through taxes at the Federal, State and Local levels you are NOT FREE... you are an INDENTURED SERVANT at best. When you have to pay property taxes or have the government confiscate it then you do not own your property. Does anyone here remember watching WWII movies where the Nazis would tell you to SHOW THEM YOUR PAPERS? Well, guess what, to travel you have to SHOW THEM YOUR PAPERS!! WAKE UP AMERICA AND SMELL THE HYPOCRISY! |
| johnnyvento 51 posts msg #65478 - Ignore johnnyvento |
7/26/2008 11:45:29 PM TRO we can forget the politics if we can just stick to stock analysis. At least you are able to write filters, all I get on this board is douche bags like WSG coming in and insulting me without offering anything of any substance... who knew that just posting a question on these boards would subject you to insults from other members. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #65482 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
7/27/2008 1:19:36 AM That's just the nature of SOME PEOPLE. Whether on the net or offline, you'll run into one of them sooner or later. Best to ignore them. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #68311 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
10/11/2008 2:33:20 PM The Great Bailout Stall, Part V By Robert Ringer Back in the late seventies and early eighties, they called people like me doom-and-gloom prophets. So, how does it feel for me to see my predications coming true? Lousy. As I've always told my children, "I don't want to have to say 'I told you so.' I want to help you." Never once did I joyfully picture telling the world "I told you so." I was focused only on sounding the alarm to help save the American Empire from total destruction. With the exception of the late Tom Snyder (and a handful of others whose names now escape me), most of the mainstream media either ignored my warnings (first choice) or waved me aside (second choice). And for a while, the majority of people may have believed the media were right. Those of us who tried to explain why the welfare state must ultimately collapse under its own weight (both moral and mathematical) did, indeed, look like "doomsayers" as Ronald Reagan came to power and waxed poetically about "a shining city on a hill." Sorry, folks, but it was all window dressing. Though I personally liked Reagan, and still believe that he meant well (meaning that he favored a free society over Marxism), the record clearly shows that, overall, many of his "social policies" continued to move America to the left. This is especially true of his last couple of years in office, when Alzheimer's was starting to set in and, perhaps, his advisors were making more and more of the major (anti-liberty) decisions. Now, fast-forward to George W. Bush, supposedly the most conservative president since Reagan. Bush is that fellow you see a lot on television lately, assuring us that the "rescue plan" will "help make our economy strong once again." He's the same shameless guy who not that many months ago was hyping another "economic stimulus plan" - printing up more money and sending taxpayers $300-$1,200 checks. And stimulate it did. By my calculations, it took most recipients of this "free money" about three days, four hours, and seventeen minutes to rush out to Best Buy and Circuit City to gobble up a few more electronic toys. Idiotic and suicidal, to be sure, but when someone needs a shot of morphine to kill the pain, it would be cruel not to give it to him, right? Okay, let's get real here. Now that everyone with an IQ over 23 knows that the bailout ... er, rescue plan ... is an outrageous scam, what's next? Answer: More of the same. Again, there can be only two endings to this modern American version of a Greek tragedy: An instant, painful deflationary depression - far worse, in many ways, than the Great Depression of the thirties, or ... A runaway inflation that would virtually assure the rise of a dictatorship to "restore order" to a society overrun by anarchy. As Voice of Sanity readers know, I've talked at length about putting an end to all government programs that are not related to the protection of people's lives and property. No government bank or corporate bailouts, no unemployment benefits, no welfare of any kind ... and, above all, a fifty-year phase-out of the Social Security and Medicare pyramid schemes. What drives people to vote for politicians who arrogantly and/or ignorantly pass legislation that makes those voters much worse off in the long run? By now, I think you know the answer: GAVEC (guiltism, angerism, villainism, envyism, covetism). I am a person who believes in examining premises when it comes to arriving at solutions. And one of the most important underlying premises in this case is best expressed by the populist phrase "the growing gap between the rich and the poor." I have never heard anyone - not politicians, not media pundits, not their guests - challenge the underlying premise of this highly emotive phrase. Not once. So, masochist that I am, I've decided to be the one to step up to the plate: When politicians and the media use the phrase "the growing gap between the rich and the poor," the underlying premise is that there is something inherently wrong or immoral about such a gap. I hereby unequivocally challenge that premise. Let us, for the moment, ignore the question of who has the wisdom and moral authority to decide who is rich and who is poor. To make things easy, I will go along with pretending as though we all agree on the definitions of both rich and poor. To further simplify things, let's boil it down to just two people. If one person had the skills, the intelligence, the knowledge, the work ethic, etc., to become far richer than another person, why in the world would he not continue to pull ahead of the person who lacks his skills, intelligence, knowledge, work ethic, etc.? Of course the disparity between the two is going to grow! There's nothing "wrong" with that. It's simply a reality. But, guess what? The "rich" person's success does not in any way prevent the "poor" person from improving his lot in life if he should make up his mind to do so. This is where the great euphemism for Marxism - pieism - enters the picture. When a Mad Mama McBama blathers about people giving up some of their pie so she and her Marxist cronies can give it to others of their choice, her words are based on the premise that the size of the pie is fixed. That premise has been so embarrassingly shattered by historic reality that I shall not even waste time on it here. Today, the so-called poor are living better than their parents and grandparents could have ever imagined just forty or fifty years ago. And that's a good thing. I like the idea of everyone being better off, don't you? And if everyone would just concentrate on his or her own well-being and ignore "the gap between rich and poor," we'd all be much happier and politicians would be stripped of their most precious vote-getting ploy. I could care less about the wealth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet. All this may seem like a diversion from the recent government bailouts (and those to follow), but it is, in fact, the underlying reason why we got to where we are today. The class warfare game is the main reason why virtually all members of the Demopublican Party - including the current president and both presidential candidates - are able to get away with outrageous actions such as bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, major corporations, and homeowners who shouldn't have been given mortgage loans in the first place. While America is crashing to the ground, they simply point their fingers in the direction of those "greedy" guys on Wall Street, "greedy" speculators, and "greedy" CEOs who made off with millions in golden parachutes. I can just hear Dodd, Frank, Reid, Schumer, & Company saying, behind closed doors, "It's the gap, stupid. Remember, it's the gap." The Fuhrer himself would have been downright proud of these guys and their incredible chutzpah, for it is he who said, "What good fortune for government that the people do not think." In Part VI of this article, we'll zero in on those greedy guys mentioned above and try to decide whether the time has come to bring out the tar and feathers or to simply shackle them with more government regulation - as both B. and J. McBama have suggested. If today's installment offended you, I can almost guarantee that you're going to hate Part VI. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,411 posts msg #68378 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
10/13/2008 2:31:12 PM The Great Bailout Stall, Part VI By Robert Ringer Is there anything that can be done about all those "greedy" Wall Street guys, speculators, and CEOs who make off with millions in golden parachutes? After all, everyone from Chris Dodd to John McBama ... from Bill O'Reilly to "conservative" icon Ben Stein ... says they are among the major culprits responsible for the collapse of the markets. In fact, those bad guys created such an economic crisis for the Demopublicans that the government "had no choice" but to put you and me on the hook for another $700 billion (for starters). They tell us they absolutely hated having to do it, but it was necessary to help "Main Street" - i.e., stiffs like you and me. I can't remember when I last felt so loved. So, is ramping up government controls over the market by increasing regulations the way to prevent a further collapse? I'm sure you already know my answer: No! In fact, I think what the market needs is less regulation. (You can't imagine how lonely it is being a minority of one.) Many years ago, the lure of Wall Street got to me. Though my experience in the markets was short-lived, I learned a little about how the game is played - and a whole lot about life and human nature. But you don't want to learn too much through experience when it comes to the stock market. You can end up with a tin cup in your hand. The first thing that struck me after I set foot inside the Wall Street Jungle was that government regulation of the markets, like all government regulation, results in unintended consequences - consequences that hurt, rather than help, small investors. I don't have room here to go into a long list, but the best example I can think of is the ridiculous warnings that saturate the prospectuses of every brokerage firm. The boilerplate warnings on those prospectuses all but guarantee the would-be investor that he will lose money if he buys the stock that's being hyped within their covers. And because the warnings are so obviously over the top, no one takes them seriously. Which, in turn, gives investors a false sense of security. What government needs to do is stop trying to play nanny to investors. People have the right to enjoy the fruits of their good (or lucky) decisions and to suffer the consequences of their bad ones - and that includes their investment decisions. "But what about brokerage firms that put out fraudulent information about companies?" Good news: We already have laws on the books to punish such criminal behavior. Fraud is illegal whether you're selling stocks, refrigerators, automobiles, or underwear. Any "regulations" beyond that would be superfluous. If investors knew they were on their own, they would be far more careful than they are now. And if brokerage houses were found guilty of committing fraud or theft, word would get around and, as in any other kind of business, they would end up with no customers. Plus, of course, the individuals responsible for perpetrating the fraud or theft would end up in jail. But what about those multimillion-dollar golden parachutes? Michael Ovitz received $140 million in severance pay after being fired as president of Disney. Doesn't the government need to put a ceiling on what fat cats like him can make off with? No! The compensation that corporate officers receive is between the shareholders and them - and thus none of the government's business. You don't give scoundrels like Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, et al. the power to intervene in agreements between consenting adults. On the contrary, it is they who should be thoroughly investigated, and, if the evidence warrants it (think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), indicted. Sorry, but more laws and more regulation is not the answer to America's financial ills. The answer is to free the marketplace - less regulation, fewer laws, more individual responsibility - and for government to get out of the money-creation and borrowing businesses. Oh, and while we're at it, how about removing all capital-gains taxes and all taxes on entrepreneurs and small-businesspeople? Then, after a brief deflationary depression of a year or so, politicians could sit back and watch both job creation and wealth creation explode. Sorry, George, but that is what would "get the economy moving again." Perhaps we should have a policy in this country similar to one that legend tells us existed in ancient Greece. Anyone who proposed a new law had to do so from a platform in the public market - with a rope around his neck. If the law was adopted by the people, they removed the rope. If it was rejected, they removed the platform. If that were the case, we, the people, would have already executed everyone in the Demopublican Party who had voted for the "rescue plan" (i.e., rescue scam). Talk about a blissful thought ... ================================================================================= "Perhaps we should have a policy in this country similar to one that legend tells us existed in ancient Greece. Anyone who proposed a new law had to do so from a platform in the public market - with a rope around his neck. If the law was adopted by the people, they removed the rope. If it was rejected, they removed the platform." WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!! |
| heypa 283 posts msg #68415 - Ignore heypa |
10/14/2008 1:21:21 PM Human nature being what it is I still think unfettered capitalism is every bit as bad as unfettered government. I think we would all be better off if we hung every politician who proposed an unconstitutional law and every judge that didn't adhere to it when making decisions. That includes the Supreme Court that had four judges recently decide that the Washington D.C. law banning gun ownership was constitutional or that loosened up the Eminent Domain laws. Lets reduce the size of the Federal Govt, Require that judges only judge law interpretation and not make laws, and that the Congress get back to their primary function of implementing and spending IAW the Constitution.Keep the Feds out of states rights. There is an ammendment process in the Constitution for that. . |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 2 3 4 5 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus