| Author | Message | ||
     Zenbiker |
Interesting, C-L was the last big fat rat left on the boat. | ||
| Spike |
I've got a totally fresh idea. It just came to me this morning, so it's understandable if you've never heard this suggestion before. I think I might put it up on twitter or something so other people can hear about this marvelous new plan and maybe it'll catch on and 'go viral' or something. STOP. SPENDING. I know that's a bit radical, so I figure we could ease into it. First we could start with the money we don't have. We should stop spending that. Then when we've got that under control, we should focus on the money we do have. We should cut back on spending that too. When we've reduced our spending both with the money we don't have and the money we do have, then we'll have what's known as a surplus. That's a fancy economic term for 'extra money'. We can focus on using some of that extra money surplus to pay for the things we bought back when we didn't have the money for them. It's not a perfect plan, but it seems like a good place to start. There, now you've heard a conservative viewpoint on how to solve our current economic problems. Now you can carry on with arguing. Alternatively, you could just keep doing what you've been doing and completely ignore this post and state that no conservative in the history of conservatives has ever had an idea for anything. Evar. Maybe use the 'party of no' line, that one seems to work well. | ||
| Doug_s |
stop spending. got it. as i said, it's been the standard answer i have heard for ages from republicans. that, along w/"cut taxes". problem is, it ain't gonna happen. republicans certainly have no record of being able to do it. about 50% of of all discretionary spending is for one thing & one thing only. i am all for cutting it in half. doug s. ps - my "dialect" is cuz, years ago, when i was single, i had turkish roomates. they couldn't pronounce anything beginning with the letters "j" or "v". it was "yust" and "wery"... pss - my wife would get a really big laugh out of your comments joking about my sexuality...   doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
I assume you're referring to the DOD's budget, since that makes up most of the discretionary spending. They key word there is "discretionary". The laws our ignorant leaders have passed that REQUIRE spending make up a full 2/3rds of the federal budget. The DOD gets the leftovers. If you read the constitution (our leaders have not from what I can tell) the feds are only authorized to do a few things, the primary one being to maintain an army and a navy. So the thing that the constitution REQUIRES them to do is the thing they fund with money left over from the extra constitutional spending on programs they have to borrow money to fund, and are not authorized by the constitution to spend money on in the first place. Remember, if it isn't in the constitution, it is reserved by the states. Do you not see why conservatives are angry about this? What is so damn hard about following the charter of the federal government? This is the essence of the tea party movement. We're fed up with the fed. We're fed up with having the commerce clause thrown in our faces to justify things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce as it relates to resolving disputes between the states, which is what the commerce clause was intended to address. We're fed up with the meaning of the same words being reinvented every time some jackass judge reads the bill of rights. Doesn't any of that piss you off too? | ||
| Moxnix |
Danny Loeb is a fascinating guy - a California surf rat turned New York hedge fund manager. In other words, he's not your run-of-the-mill financial type. He came into the business through the backdoor and succeeded on the strength of his talents, wits and determination. He manages $3.4 billion in his hedge fund named Third Point Partners L.P. Loeb just published a fascinating letter critiquing the Obama Administration. But Danny's letter is as much a lament of the current course of America's econo-political trends as it is a critique of Obama & Co. In short, Danny believes the Obama Administration is making mistakes - this would be the same Obama Administration that Danny helped to vote into office and for which he helped to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think you will appreciate Daniel Loeb's investment insights...even if you do not agree with his politics. Please read on: Review and Outlook As we entered the second quarter of 2010, many measures of confidence and economic activity were showing consistent improvement, leading us to increase our exposures in select undervalued companies that we thought would benefit from a favorable economic environment. Most pundits initially attributed the subsequent turn in the markets and investor sentiment to the Greek crisis, concern over the Euro, the Oil Spill in the Gulf, and vague rumors concerning faltering Chinese growth. However, it is apparent to us that the turning point in both investor and consumer confidence came on April 16th, with the filing of the government's suit against Goldman Sachs over its mortgage CDO activities. This politically-laced lawsuit was a tipping point for shaky investor confidence against an increasingly worrisome landscape of new laws and proposed regulations that are perceived by many market participants to promote "redistribution" rather than growth, and are contrary to free market ideals. As every student of American history knows, this country's core founding principles included non-punitive taxation, Constitutionally- guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority, and an inexorable right of self-determination. Washington has taken actions over the past months like the Goldman suit that seem designed to fracture the populace by pulling capital and power from the hands of some and putting it in the hands of others. For example, a well-intentioned government program gone awry is the new CARD Act that restricts banks from repricing interest rates on borrowers who fail to meet their revolving credit obligations. The effect of this legal prohibition has been to force the banks to raise the interest rate paid by all borrowers, to compensate for losses they are now being forced to take on delinquent borrowers. The effect is a redistribution of wealth from people who pay their debts on time to those who do not. Laws and regulations such as these justifiably raise questions about this government's commitment to free-market capitalism and the articulated rule of law. Arguably unconstitutional Bills of Attainder, such as the special "Enterprise Tax" proposed to be levied on hedge fund managers and other managers of private partnerships who wish to sell their management companies (ostensibly in order to extend unemployment benefits beyond the current 99 weeks) send a vivid message that this Administration is operating from a playbook quite different from the one we are used to as American business people; a thought that chills all participants in these free markets. On the other hand, it is not hard to understand the source of the popular distrust in capitalism today. Many people see the collapse of the sub-prime markets, along with the failure and subsequent rescue of many banks, as failures of capitalism rather than a result of a vile stew of inept management, unaccountable boards of directors, and overmatched regulators not just asleep, but comatose, at the proverbial switch. When we hear the chorus of former executives and regulators exclaim that the crisis was "impossible to see coming", while at the same time walking away with millions or going on to greater levels of responsibility in government, it is both puzzling and demoralizing. It is easy to see why so many people have concluded that the entire system is rigged. This crisis of trust in our system is not limited to inept executives in regulated financial institutions that bury their shareholders and then walk away with ill-gotten sacks of loot. Having analyzed hundreds of proxy statements from the outside and having had the "pleasure" of sitting on several corporate boards, giving me a chance to walk the sausage factory floor, I have personally witnessed the incompetence of many boards of directors. One can only conclude that the incentive systems put in place for directors reward luck and station more than they do talent, skill or creation of shareholder value. Not all boards are bad, of course. Private equity firms have a terrific model of appointing energetic members of their firms and outside experts to oversee the affairs of the companies they govern. They tend to have real "skin in the game", spend days reviewing strategy and other matters, and have their own staffs to analyze numbers produced by the company. Board fees tend to be irrelevant to the members of such firms as they are keenly focused on strategies to deleverage and to create long/medium term shareholder value. Even some public companies have similarly engaged corporate boards. However, individuals who rely on the stipends they receive from numerous corporate boards and thus appear motivated primarily to ensure continuing board fees, first-class air travel and accommodations, and a steady diet of free corned beef sandwiches until they reach their mandatory retirement age populate many of the boards we have come across. All of the above leads us to conclude that America faces not only a crisis of confidence among consumers unwilling to spend and businesspeople unwilling to invest, but also a crisis of leadership. So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire. As capital allocators, it is important to remain dispassionate amid the volatility. We have given a great deal of thought about the impact that public policy has on individual companies, industries, and the economy generally. It was this decision framework that led us to shed our investments in large cap US banks in January due to concerns over increasing regulatory headwinds (in advance of the announcement of the Volcker Rule). We have also sold other regulated industries and eliminated our position in Wellpoint, an HMO that is a statistically cheap stock owned by several hedge funds, but which we saw as being overly exposed to unpredictable government regulation. On the other hand, our perspective on the government's increased willingness to use its regulatory muscle enhanced our short positions in the for-profit education space. Indeed, this summer certain government actions taken regarding these companies served to accelerate the unfolding of our thesis on these names. As we discussed in June's letter and on our Quarterly Investor Call a few weeks ago, we began to bring our gross and net exposures down significantly throughout May, primarily in our equities portfolio. We continued this process through the remainder of the Second Quarter, carving out most positions without definitive hard catalysts on the equity side, also reducing positions in Europe, and avoiding sectors entirely where US government intervention remains likely. Gross and net exposures in our portfolio today are at their lowest levels since March 2009, and have been decreasing all summer in accordance with our political and economic framework. One can hope only that this Administration, composed of brilliant academics that have had experience in creating the very regulation and overseeing the very institutions that have failed, has learned from its mistakes and will set us down the right path. Perhaps our leaders will awaken to the fact that free market capitalism is the best system to allocate resources and create innovation, growth and jobs. Perhaps they will see the folly of generating greater deficits by "investing" in programs that lead to corruption and distortions of the system. Perhaps too, a cloven-hoofed, bristly haired mammal will become airborne and the rosette-like marking of a certain breed of ferocious feline will become altered. In other words, we are not holding our breath and are focused instead on navigating these murky waters for the benefit of our funds. [Note: Third Point LLC is a registered investment adviser based in New York, with approximately $3.4 billion of assets under management. The firm was founded in 1995 by Daniel S. Loeb, who is CEO and oversees all investment activity. Third Point employs an event driven, value oriented investment style.] Moxnix comment: How dare capitalists not give away the store!! | ||
| Sifo |
Doug, Now that we've gotten some facts stwaight about the gwound zewo mosqwe, it's time to test ouw honesty. Hewe's the facts we know... 1) Dey awe buiwding a mosqwe. 2) Dewe's been deceit about it not being a mosqwe. 3) De iswamic community centew isn't what is typicawwy thought of as a community centew. It's a pwace fow muswims to gathew to be wif theiw own and not assimiwate into Amewican cuwtuwe. 4) Dey awe not being twanspawent about whewe the funding is coming fwom. 5) Viwtuawwy no one is cwaiming they don't have a wight to buiwd it. It's the wisdom of buiwding it that is in qwestion, uh-hah-hah-hah. Now given that you had some of these facts incowwect when you decided that the gwound zewo mosqwe was OK, I can undewstand youw suppowt fow it. Given the facts as you now know them have youw changed youw view on it they shouwd continue pushing to buiwd the mosqwe? If you stiww suppowt the mosqwe pwease do us the favow of expwaining how you stiww come to this concwusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. | ||
| Strokizator |
Doug, you're killing me. First you hit me with the "I'm smarter than you" (160 IQ) and now you follow it up with "My wife's hotter than yours". You got me both times. I surrender.  | ||
| Moxnix |
Doug s., my Mensa card along with a buck and change gets me coffee at Dunkin' Doorknobs. | ||
| Buellkowski |
He's been banned. Let it go. | ||
| Slaughter |
I want to add to the post count on this thread | ||
| Sifo |
Is he weawwy gone? Ow did Bwake just ask him to weave again? He was a chawactew though. Fiwst time I evew heawd someone cwaim to pick up a wwitten accent fwom a woom-mate. | ||
| Court |
>>>stop spending. I agree. Since the day George Washington took the Oath of Office until Barack Obama did the country incurred $9,000,000,000,000 of debt. Since Barack Obama took the Oath of Office that number has increased $3,500,000,000,000. Which explains why a DEMOCRATIC poll in Ohio this week ( a state they went heavily for Obama) indicated by a 50% to 42% margin that they would prefer to have George W. Bush back in office than have Obama finish his term. Interesting times. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I saw a commercial today and it all made total sense Uncle Sam was digging a hole in the ground, and as the announcer named a program the hole got bigger.....and deeper... but if you looked to the left of the hole there was a huge mound.... this must be how they think, the only way I can get a huge mound of dirt is to dig a big hole.... (of course if you just left well enough alone the economy would self correct, it always has) I didnt say it would be painless, but it always has self corrected as long as some self indulgent prig (from either party) didnt meddle in the market. gas, bullets, reloads, food, water, your currency is worthless. Mad Max is coming | ||
| Moxnix |
We could be on the road to prosperity now, rather than looking at another 5 to 15 years of stagnation, decline, and desperation. Let bad banks fail. Let poorly managed companies be sold. Let the "water" of economics find its own level. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
GM was on the ropes because it was managed poorly and they produced products no one (but Froggy) wanted. The financial exposure of the bankruptcy of GM is miniscule compared to the long term, compounded impact of the bailout. Same for banks. | ||
| Moxnix |
Not too many years back, GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) made more money than building vehicles. An in-house bank, financing cars and trucks in the era of easy credit. Worse yet, they got into the mortgage business. And the real estate brokerage business. Now, over 56% is owned by Uncle Sugar. with a name change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMAC | ||
| Reindog |
GM? No thanks. I will buy my cars from a real automobile company like Ford who refused government handouts and the demonization of the bondholders, while bowing down to the UAW. Who wants a car designed by committee? Not me. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I would buy a Saturn, they were orphaned like Buell. Would I buy a new GM, nope. But then again, with the depreciation on the things, I am NEVER buying a new car. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
Banned? Blake dosn't follow the rules of his own site by implying the guy is gay and HE gets the boot? What a frickin' hypocrit. Well, come the next round of elections, and if what some predict will be a landslde victory for the "conservatives" it better change for the better. And fast. You all seem to think that the previous 8 years had nothing to do with the condition we are all now facing. I predict it will stay the same or get worse. What will be you bullshit backpeddling story then? Stll Obamas fault. And I'll be right here to remind you how wrong you were! that is unless Blake implies I am gay and then bans me. So what's going on with HD? | ||
| Spike |
Doug S. syndrome is spreading. Now none of the liberals can read. Hey Rocket- if you get some time later, could you do me a favor and READ THIS THREAD! It would go a long way toward furthering our discussion. (hint- we've already covered the economic problems Bush caused) | ||
| Spike |
I can't dumb this down for you any further. There are only two real methods to get out of debt. You can either spend less or earn more. If you oppose both you won't get out of debt. If you come up with a magic 3rd option, throw it away because it's bogus. | ||
| Roadcouch98 |
 Rocket, If you would only pull your head out of the sand, you cannot deny what is happening is not for the betterment of this Country, but for the tightening of the shackles we will wear if it continues. | ||
| Reindog |
Rocco, No one can get away with your hurlage and sputum the way you do. You are simply awesome! About the gay thing. Everyone is considered gay until proven otherwise.  It is amazing that you overlook the deliberate acceleration of our debt by Obama and the Obama Congress. They have created a doo-doo sandwich that hasn't happened yet but is as clear as the brown streaks on my underwear. | ||
| Sifo |
Did Bush spend to much? I must have missed that. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Yes Bush spent. He is responsible for the biggest increase in aid to Africa than that of any other administration. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I wasn't at all keen on the "no child left behind" and medicare prescription drug benefit arrangements. Republicans squandered their opportunity. The Conservatives are coming. The Republicans had better watch out. | ||
| Reindog |
Aye, aye on that, FB. The Republicans are trying to maintain the status quo, when now is the time for Conservatism. Let them be washed away with the Democrats if they are unable to change. The Tea Party is starting to wake Americans up and showing there is truly a grass roots alternative. | ||
| Sifo |
Hey Rocket, I'm just curious... Do you understand why there was an expiration on the Bush tax cuts yet? | ||
| Buellkowski |
I read this article yesterday about the billionaire seeds and rich fertilizer feeding the Tea Party's "grass roots." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/1008 30fa_fact_mayer Are the Kochs entitled to spend their money wherever they like? Of course they are. Is this article fair? The Kochs don't think so. But how many Tea Partiers do you suppose actually know about this stuff? | ||
| Sifo |
But how many Tea Partiers do you suppose actually know about this stuff? Anything in particular that you feel Tea Partiers should know about? Just linking to a very long article isn't very specific. |
