patrick.net

Nemo, I am not a CRAMMER Fan per say, but he is not just an entertainer, If you know or care to know his record, but that aside he is Correct as is your link, that we are EXPORTING a lot of HEAVY Equipment for all the emerging markets and mining rare earths and more common minerals. Farming is also growing locally here in the USA

My wife does. I honestly don't understand the appeal.

But that goes for all "reality" TV in my book. I know what reality is like already. When I watch TV, I want totally unrealistic, unlikely, and over dramatized portrayals of things, or pure fantasy.

I want giant robots, aliens, or some kind of super powers.

I want magic, gladiators, or at least roman orgies.

I want good vs. evil.

I want giant explosions.

I want fucking zombie apocalypse.

I don't want people who are only on TV because they have too many kids. I don't want to see people doing a shitty job on a game show. I definitely don't want anything to do with people who happen to have dirty houses.

Clearly not paying their employees enough to inflate home prices.

General, operating and administrative expenses were $331 million during 2009, compared to $391 million in 2008.

The decrease resulted primarily from reductions in labor costs and other operating expenses as a result of our cost reduction actions. There were 1,534 full-time employees as of December 31, 2009, compared to 1,714 as of December 31, 2008

lol ... so the trickle-up-poverty system that progressive leftisits cram down our throats is better? Under Reagan's system didn't ALL of the welfare/social/hand-out programs GROW A TON -- AND STAY FUNDED?!?! Can't say that about trickle-up-poverty by Barry.

Today's leftisits are doing J.Carter II and spending money faster than it can be printed. Not even the paper and ink for the printing presses are funded. The liberal/leftist/progressive controlled media is guilty of treason. What else explains the lack of outrage on the econmic choices made by the now-running rats? I know , I know, "it's Bush's fault.".... wait wait, "it's Reagan's fault" ..... oh, crap, wait wait, "it's Truman's fault".....

cmon folks ... Barry had done ZERO in life or politics before becoming HNIC* .. who in their right mind would expect him to do anything other than what has happened?? forced wealth transfers to SEIU, forced wealth transfers to docs and pharms and destruction of health system, no prosecution of voting place intimidation by Black Panthers, disrespecting Isreal, bowing to Islam, lots and lots of vaction and golf .... this guy pretty much sucks. Clinton was much better .... and other than all of the dead people around him and his husband Hillary ..... and all of that WhiteWater stuff .... and that dang Rose legal group ..... and military secrets handed over to China,,,,, other than that stuff, when compaired to Lord Barry, Clinton wasn't all bad. I even miss 'ol Slick Willy right now. His moral issues not withstanding.

*"Head Noobe In Charge"

Bap33 says

Under Reagan’s system didn’t ALL of the welfare/social/hand-out programs GROW A TON — AND STAY FUNDED?!?!

And didn't the deficit grow by an unprecendented amount?

if the deficit grew, then it was not funded. Oh, wait, that's right .... the liberals in Congress FORCED deficit spending in an effort to curb some Reagan military spending ... basically the progressive liberals piggy-backed all kinds of pork and public spending onto military bills (so the price tag on Army stuff went sky-high) and thereby made it look as if social stuff was funded, but military stuff wasn't and deficit spending became more normal - right? aint that what happened? All of that is just my recallection and some guess work. Beating Russia into submission was not cheap. And now the Arab/Islam nation, with the aide of the anti-American progressives, is doing the same to us.

Bap33 says

if the deficit grew, then it was not funded

Yes--that was kinda my point.

Bap33 says

the liberals in Congress FORCED deficit spending in an effort to curb some Reagan military spending

I forgot. It was those nasty LIBS again!

tatupu70 says

I forgot. It was those nasty LIBS again!

I love how Bap switched gears from praising Reagan's budgeting prowess to blaming the Tipper O'Neil Congress' free spending when Bap's realized his original point was totally BS.

Bap33 says

lol … so the trickle-up-poverty system that progressive leftisits cram down our throats is better?

Better than glibertopia? Sure.

Today’s leftisits are doing J.Carter II

Carter actually held the debt constant in real terms.

and spending money faster than it can be printed.

This is where your rhetoric is running faster than your brain.

A clear understanding of the current situation would recognize that the System just got through blowing up a $10T credit bubble 2000-2008. What happened was corporations and households got to borrow a lot of money and spend it on crap. Most of this was consumption, so we have more debt now with less ability to service it.

BUT THE MONEY THAT WAS CREATED 2000-2008 is STILL OUT THERE. China has a lot of it, so does Japan, and everybody else who was smarter than the average bear 2005-2008 and stepped out of the way before everything exploded, or, like GS, actively placed their bets ON the inevitable total collapse we got in 2008-2009.

So now the Head Nigger In Charge did in fact get a palliative "stimulus" package through Congress last year, enough for a mild amount of spending to soften the shock of losing that $1T/yr debt intake the economy had grown accustomed to during the Bush Boom.

Not even the paper and ink for the printing presses are funded.

We're not printing our way through this (much), we're BORROWING this money, and the people we're borrowing this money from are happy with 2.8% rates for 10 years. What does this tell you?

The liberal/leftist/progressive controlled media is guilty of treason. What else explains the lack of outrage on the econmic choices made by the now-running rats? I know , I know, “it’s Bush’s fault.”…. wait wait, “it’s Reagan’s fault” ….. oh, crap, wait wait, “it’s Truman’s fault”…..

I hate to break it to you, but it is indeed Bush's fault.

Rest of your bullshit snipped. Wish I could unread it.

"That’s because I read beyond the articles. $373,650 is the top tax bracket."

I'm sure that's of small comfort to the people who aren't in the top tax bracket including... lots of dual professional married leftist wonks living in blue state regions who often fit into the $250K range. Indeed, that's why the "fair" democrats want their "rich" buddies to be exempt. I'm sure the voters in "blue dog" states will just love that!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385060539126410.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

All of this is largely moot anyway since Bill Gates Sr. is a tax accountant that specializes in moving assets to trusts in order for his high paying customers to avoid the death, er, estate tax (and he unsurprisingly opposes the repeal of such a tax. How magnamious of him!) It's well known that the wealthy rarely file taxes as simple "individuals" and when they do, they have lots of business expenses such as Al Gore flying around the world on a private jet to all his homes where he runs A/C nonstop to preach the evils of air travel and A/C...

Vicente wrote: "For the last 2-3 decades we ran this “trickle-down” experiment. The claim was if we gave tax cuts to the rich, it would all trickle down and EVERYONE would become wealthier. I was a staunch Republican for quite a long time, and I can say the wool pulled over my eyes was convincing and seductive, but it was hogwash. "

Vicente, I have had many airplane cocktail conversations with "former republicans who see the light" and then in the discussion it's revealed that they're bigger leftists than Nader. So pardon me if I'm a bit doubtful of your former "staunch Republican" claim.

Anyways, I'm amused at how leftists claim to that the origin of their belief is this "help the working Joe" when their agenda is to discriminate against working men and then pay welfare mothers to gestate children into poverty and then import impovershed people to drive down wages. How is that working out for making America become like Sweden? (then again, based upon the last election, Sweden isn't going to look like "Sweden" for long...)

Sigh, I remember growing up reading about how leftists were great scientific and cultural minds and wanted a futurama where we all had flying cars. Instead, they're crazy hippies in the forest eating granola (or hippocrites driving cars with bumper stickers saying they hate cars) and afraid of anything "artificial" while they wear Ipods made in China. And they're the "elites!"

Bap33 says

Beating Russia into submission was not cheap.

? The Soviet Union imploded due to its economic system being totally unworkable. No beatings were administered nor were they required. Pepsi, The Scorpions, and the Apple II did more to torpedo Marxist-Leninism than anything Reagan did. (Though Reagan does deserve props for the Berlin Wall speech.)

Why do conservatives always hold the greatest faith in the power and threat of Communism? I was just a wee lad at the time but even then i could sense that it was going to fall apart eventually.

PolishKnight says

I’m sure that’s of small comfort to the people who aren’t in the top tax bracket including… lots of dual professional married leftist wonks living in blue state regions who often fit into the $250K range

A married couple earning $250,000 is facing a $100/mo greater tax bill if Clinton's top 2 brackets are restored. Please take your bullshit somewhere else.

"Barry Goldwater in the 1960’s."

Barry Goldwater was about as "extremist" as GW Bush which is to say, not that much. Indeed, GW favored amnesty for illegal immigrants, pushed through a massive bailout (that Barack Hussein Obama and other Democrats happily voted for), more money for teachers' unions, favored racist hiring preferences against whites and men, the list goes on. Yet, GW was hated by the left as a "right wing extremist" since the day of his inauguration.

Barry Goldwater supported pro-abortion rights, gay rights, and was a friend of JFK. While not a liberal, he certainly wasn't the strongest conservative around at that time or ours.

It's safe to say that the left has said that EVERY Republican candidate is an "extremist" since all people who disagree with the left are, by their definition, "extremists" and "bigots".

PolishKnight says

GW was hated by the left as a “right wing extremist” since the day of his inauguration.

It was all the religious bullshit that got to me. Stem Cell funding ban, Office of Faith-based Initiatives, and that God thing telling him to take out Saddam, too.

Roberts and Alito were also special gifts we'll have to live with for a long time. Thanks, Ralph!

"Stem Cell funding ban"

Er, don't you mean FETAL stem cell funding ban? You know, not ADULT stem cells that actually were already producing cures. And the funding ban wasn't against states or private enterprise. They could throw their money away (like California) as much as they wanted.

"religious bullshit"

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Martin Luther King... 'nuff said.

I honestly believe watching TV destroys brain cells. I've observed older people over the years that spend a lot of time in front of the box and they all pretty much appear to be programmed brain dead zombies. Maybe that explains why Obama received such a high percentage of the vote? Interesting thought. When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad we put that idiot box in the trash years ago.

Troy claims: "A married couple earning $250,000 is facing a $100/mo greater tax bill if Clinton’s top 2 brackets are restored. Please take your bullshit somewhere else."

Let's reverse that: If the money isn't that much for the $250K bracket as we keep hearing... then why doesn't the left just raise the bracket to $500K or so? (Or cancel the plan to let blue state "rich" off the hook)

Sorry if I don't take my "bullshit" somewhere else. I know how wrong it is for people to have opinions outside the leftist orthodoxy...

"Wonderful things happen when prices of home drop back to normal."

Why would this have any relationship to home prices?

PolishKnight says

Anyways, I’m amused at how leftists claim to that the origin of their belief is this “help the working Joe”

PolishKnight says

Sigh, I remember growing up reading about how leftists were great scientific and cultural minds and wanted a futurama where we all had flying cars

I see you've got the strawman machine up and running this morning...

RayAmerica says

I honestly believe watching TV destroys brain cells. I’ve observed older people over the years that spend a lot of time in front of the box and they all pretty much appear to be programmed brain dead zombies. Maybe that explains why Obama received such a high percentage of the vote?

I think McCain won the older vote pretty handily so I don't think so.

PolishKnight says

Vicente, I have had many airplane cocktail conversations with “former republicans who see the light” and then in the discussion it’s revealed that they’re bigger leftists than Nader. So pardon me if I’m a bit doubtful of your former “staunch Republican” claim.

You're right. I could claim to be anything on the internet. I cannot PROVE to you that I voted straight Republican from 1980 to 2008. I suspect you are a granola-eating pot-smoking hippy who is trolling for amusement, but cannot prove that either. And where does this lead? Nowhere.

New Definitions for old words...

Thespians: A dysfunctional family

Vicente, I wasn't casting doubt whimsically. I really have encountered people who claimed to be "conservatives" and "republicans until recently" and then when I delved deeper into discussions with them, they revealed opinions that belonged in the green party.

If I'm a "trolling" hippy then I'm putting on a long act rather than just playing with a label. You can't "prove" to me that you voted straight republican until 2008 BUT... I do find it suspicious that you would switch for Obama but not for Gore, Kerry, or even Clinton for that matter. If someone such as McCain was unpalatable to a straight voting Republican compared to Obama, why not Clinton versus GBush I? A LOT of Republicans broke off of GB I over the "read my lips, no new taxes pledge".

So sure, I can't _disprove_ your claims either but I find them "special" to say the least.

"I see you’ve got the strawman machine up and running this morning…"

Works better than a Volt! :-)

"As for me, I’d rather make $400k and pay 50% in tax, than make $40k and pay no tax.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilization… and Liberty, to paraphrase John Locke."

How about 50% taxes on $40K income?

To quote Franklin (I think), those who give up liberty for a little more security wind up with neither. Just remember when you go to France or Sweden to rent a vehicle with a car alarm...

PolishKnight says

“Barry Goldwater in the 1960’s.”
Barry Goldwater was about as “extremist” as GW Bush which is to say, not that much.

Nonsense. Goldwater was THE ultraconservative in his day. The NeoCons would prefer to revise history of course since his views do not fit the "new truth" post-1980 since he did not kowtow to the religious fundamentalists, his views being centered on fiscal conservatism and liberty but largely secular and expansive for public policy. The GOP of the time considered him so extreme and unelectable they propped up Rockefeller and other weak candidates and generally tried to undermine his campaign.

I have more respect for Goldwater the more I read about him. I don't agree with his every view, but he wasn't the sort of pandering sycophant that either Bush was.

if you make $400k .. and a gallon of milk costs $40K, and a gallon of gas costs $60K, and everyone on your block is on welfare and gets free milk and gas and so many benefits that welfare pays as well as a $800K job .... in that case I'm pretty sure that $400K (at any taxed rate) of which you speak is not all that good a spot to be, it is?

Bap33 says

if you make $400k .. and a gallon of milk costs $40K, and a gallon of gas costs $60K, and everyone on your block is on welfare and gets free milk and gas and so many benefits that welfare pays as well as a $800K job …. in that case I’m pretty sure that $400K (at any taxed rate) of which you speak is not all that good a spot to be, it is?

But if the moon was made of cheese and corvettes grew on trees, then I might be OK with $400K. Right?

It's ironic that your claim that the "neocons" would like to revise history and say he was not the ultra conservative of the day when it's actually Republicans such as RR who revered him and regarded him as such. In any case, the term "neocon" is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren't what you claim to be. It's like someone saying they're some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

That said, Eisenhower seems to have fumed when Goldwater said something nasty about him but a similar thing happened with GBI and RR via "Voodoo economics."

Could you please elaborate, if you're a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him "extremist" and caused fellow republicans to back away from him? Was it his advocacy of limited government? How extreme (almost as bad as quoting the constitution! :-) Or was it his "extremism" in his agreeing with a nuclear policy that JFK and pretty much every other president including LBJ signed off on?

PolishKnight says

Vicente, I wasn’t casting doubt whimsically. I really have encountered people who claimed to be “conservatives” and “republicans until recently” and then when I delved deeper into discussions with them, they revealed opinions that belonged in the green party.

According to YOU they belonged in the Green Party. If you take them at their word, which I see no reason not to, they voted Republican. In Ronald "Big Tent" Reagan's day, there was room in the party for variances, unlike now. You could be gay or non-Christian or recycle your bottles and cans, yet still legitimately identify as Republican. Now if you are not 100% toeing every line, you are at best a RINO. A "useful idiot" to be tolerated, but denigrated. Ultimately this sort of thing is what drove me out. I'd suggest instead of letting just any old Schmoe register as Republican, there be a PURITY TEST and perhaps an oath, so you can keep people with "environmentalist leanings" and other such deviants out.

BAP33, I'm reminded of when I was visiting a friend in Switzerland and chatting with a student who was from Amsterdam. He spoke very good English and at the end of the conversation, he tried to bum money from me.

I also went around to different stations and was regularly approached or asked for money by reasonably well dressed beggars. It was weird. I mean, when I go to a train station and get people bothering me for change (Change! Vote for Change! :-) , I usually expect them to be a bit harder down on their luck.

In any case, based upon what I see on European TV and Russia Today, it appears that this lifestyle is on it's way down there. If you go through DeGalle, be prepared to experience some random strike and don't even think about going to Greece. It took a while with their racist anti-immigration policies to see the collapse, but it's coming in about 20 years and the cracks are showing. Good thing I qualify for Polish citizenship!

PolishKnight says

Could you please elaborate, if you’re a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him “extremist” and caused fellow republicans to back away from him?

Generally speaking he was straight John Birch material. I think it was William F. Buckley who convinced him to keep the John Birch Society at arms' length, but it was pretty obvious from things he said like "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." that containment wasn't enough. Much like when Reagan made a similar comment on a live mike, it made a lot of moderate people shit-scared that he'd push The Button. That he might be enough of a loose cannon to consider nuclear war a desirable first action in office. There were other factors at play, but that's one that comes to mind. Yes, that Goldwater, what a flaming pansy liberal!

I searched for the exact source of the "let's lob one into the kremlin" and couldn't find it so I suspect it's probably something he said in a backroom somewhere. Did this REALLY convince people he was a gun-toting "extremist" or was this mere Democrat rhetoric in their election campaign? As I pointed out, his policy on MADD was no different than that of "extremist" JFK...

I'm amused, BTW, that the campaign the left hated when Eisenhower used the "It's time for a change" as simplistic was picked up recently by Obama and hailed as genius. All that's old is new again...

You can dispute my opinion as to whether these self-proclaimed republicans belonged in the green party, but that's just based upon the various positions they held including racial preferences, anti-constitutional gun rights, socialism, and feminism to name a few. Was there room in the republican party of the reagan era for those views? I guess so. Certainly in the liberal Northeast which hated Goldwater. But... it doesn't make much sense for someone to hold those views and vote for Reagan or even GBI/II when they are much more closely matched to the Democrat or Green party. Is the republican party MORE anti-gay than during the 80's? I highly doubt it since, as you know, BOTH parties today had presidential candidates who were publically opposed to gay marriage. I don't know if Reagan's big tent "welcomed republicans" but I welcome you showing me so!

Regarding the "purity test". I notice that most pictures or cartoons from the left bashing the rich tend to feature white males and bashing white males is popular with the left even as they claim that racism and sexism are the worst things in the world. It's a funny stance for a party that wants to make the USA more like France or Sweden but this is because non-whites and women were most useful as constituencies for the welfare state. At one time, working class white males were the lead marxist constituency group but times change. I'm sure they'll change again, say, in France when the courts say that it's a human rights violation to stop women from wearing burkas...

PolishKnight says

In any case, the term “neocon” is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren’t what you claim to be. It’s like someone saying they’re some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

AFAICR the NeoConservative label label came in with Karl "The Architect" Rove, describing his generation taking over and reforming. I suppose back in the old days I'd describe myself more as a William F. Buckley sort of Republican, not the Sarah Palin sort at all. That was another of my breaking points, when I realized the party had degenerated so far that it had become a requirement to worship morons and you had to hide any education or intelligence you might have or be suspect. Again your response is precisely what I mean, you keep fishing around trying to show i "wasn't conservative enough" to deserve checking off Republican as my affiliation. I must have been sort of closet Lib-mole or something, you'll find it if you inspect my writings close enough....

marcus says

theoakman says

A “good investor” would have missed out on all those gigantic gains I made in mining stocks.

The typical investor isn’t nearly as brilliant as you. Hey, we can’t all have the kind of insight that you do.
theoakman says

A lot of the financial communities definition of low risk is USTbills earning 2%. If you asked me, they are the riskiest assets that exist today outside of Japanese Bonds earning 0%.

Cruisin for a …
Or as my Aunt used to say, “you just have to live a while.” For any of you old time traders out there, what would be better for this guy in the long run ? To be right ? Or to be wrong ?

There wasn't any incredible brilliance behind my investments. In 2008 and 2009, everyone ran for the doors and literally piled into worthless US T-bills paying 2%. Meanwhile, there were companies out there producing essential commodities and goods that had dividend yields of 10-15% after those dividends were slashed 50%! I guess people really did believe we wouldn't be buying oil from these companies ever again. Why on earth would someone buy a US Tbill that earns 2% when they can buy a stock/trust that earns 10-15%? Because they thought the world was going to end. Gold was a no brainer. People cannot get it through their heads that it was undervalued on a historical basis because they sit in front of their computer and stare at the 1980 high of $890 which lasted all of 12 minutes. Furthermore, gold and silver stocks took over an 80% hit on the downswing in 2008. People on this board were screaming for $300 gold when it dipped near $700. My thesis was simple. Gold was going to $2000, Silver was going to $50. Mining stocks were down 80% from the peak when gold hit 1000 in March of 2008. If you believed that gold was even going to hit $900 again, how could you not buy into that? This wasn't complicated. Buy the big the dip and hold. That's all investors had to do. Yet for some reason, people were screaming "cash is king" while the S&P rose 60%.

Fast forward to today. Several mining stocks are significantly higher than they were prior to the crash in 2008. All losses were erased. They are leveraged to the price of gold and we haven't even come close to my original price target. Every single aspect of the market that drove gold to today's price is still in effect. Not only that, but those fundamentals are only increasing in magnitude.

Debt? Up
Monetary Expansion? Check
Unemployment? Here to stay
Quantitative Easing? Doesn't work but they'll keep trying
Interest Rates? Not much more downside there

Anyone that simply claims that gold/silver have been driven purely by speculation has not backed up those claims and the results have contradicted these claims for about 5 straight years. If gold was a speculative bubble, it would have been completely unwound during the deleveraging of 2008.

PolishKnight says

Let’s reverse that: If the money isn’t that much for the $250K bracket as we keep hearing…

This is pretty simple math even for a moron like you.

Let's look at the $250,000 taxable income example.

Todays 33% bracket starts $209,250 so that's $40,750 into the bracket that's going to be subject to Clintonian confiscation by us leftists.

The 300 basis point tax rise on this marginal income will exact an additional $1,222.50 in taxes. Since you're obviously too stupid to do the math from here let me divide that out for you: $1222.50 / 12 = $101.88.

If you still have any problems with this math I'll try to explain it in smaller words for you.

then why doesn’t the left just raise the bracket to $500K or so? (Or cancel the plan to let blue state “rich” off the hook

We could add more brackets and stuff but Obama here is being conservative by reducing the change to the system since people certainly don't like change or any confusion these days.

PolishKnight says

Sorry if I don’t take my “bullshit” somewhere else. I know how wrong it is for people to have opinions outside the leftist orthodoxy…

Being utterly wrong about everything is not heroic. it makes you a moron.

Next time you want to keep your tax cuts try not to start trillion-dollar wars for no good reason.

If gold hits 2k and silver hits 50 - I'm cashing out and buying that damn boat.

I bought PM's a couple years ago assuming this may happen someday, but wow, we're about to blow through $1300 here real soon.

I bought 100 of these right here at about $14 a piece a ways back : http://www.apmex.com/Product/44447/1_oz_999_Fine_Silver_Rounds___Buffalo.aspx

Right after the purchase, I thought, why did I buy rounds... (I always got either SAE's, maples or philharmonics)... they were just so cheap at the time - couldn't pass em up. But man - over $22 for a silver round? Hard to believe.