Obama's Un-Stimulus Package

In January 2009, the S&P500 index lost 8.6%, the worst January in its history. In February 2009, the S&P500 index lost 11%, the second-worst on record following the 18.4% decline in 1933. On March 1, 2009, the S&P500 lost 4.66%, the worst first day of March in its history. We know it feels like a century ago, but it was just in December 2008, Bloomberg surveyed market strategists for their 2009 S&P 500 price targets. Collectively, strategists were looking for a gain of 21.8% from the index's level then, or for the S&P500 to end 2009 at a price range of 975 to 1300. Call them stupid, but didn’t we all kind of enter 2009 a bit concerned of missing a market rally? After all, the S&P500 climbed 20% to end 2008 at 903.25 from its November 2008 low of 752.44. Although we knew 2009 was going to be a very challenging year, we believed a recovery would happen sooner rather than later.

What has happened? There was certainly very bad news such as steadily rising unemployment, a disheartening GDP decrease of 6.2% in Q4 2008, the fastest pace since 1982, rising foreclosures, falling home sales and prices, rising credit card defaults, and continuing banking troubles. While all that news was bad, it was hardly surprising. The market had been waiting for the government to unveil a logical plan to deal with banks, given the build up for our new Treasury Secretary, and had hoped for a restoration of some fiscal discipline of the federal government. Those hopes turned out to be short lived. Starting with Geithner laying an egg during his first major address to the nation about the banking crisis, things only got worse as the month progressed.

Here are the various plans and proposals from the federal government that have been passed, or will likely be passed in the near future, which are largely responsible for the market slide, in our opinion.

1. (2/13/2009) The “Un” Stimulus package passed. The $787 billion stimulus package was pieced together in 4 weeks and quickly passed in the Senate and House, with the final bill not read by a single House member before its passing. Rather than serving the purpose of stimulating the economy, a big portion of the government spending, which accounts for 2/3 of the bill, is to significantly expand federal power, promising to give billions of dollars in grants to local schools, to replace lost state aid, and to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments. While it is very questionable whether this package creates any sustainable stimulus, the bill represents 2.5% of two years’ US GDP, dwarfing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal which never increased the deficit by more than 1.5% of the nation's GDP even during its biggest-spending year of 1934.

2. (2/18/2009) The Irresponsible Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. This plan aims to provide several forms of assistance to as many as 7-9 million home owners who may be at risk of defaulting on their mortgages. By investing in failure, we worry this will fundamentally change the average American’s views on self reliance and financial responsibility. In addition, because this plan is focused on reducing mortgage rates, and investors/lenders will be forced to cover a portion of the mortgage rate reduction, it will deter private sector investment from entering the mortgage market in the future. In addition to the overall concept, from a capital market perspective there are also some particularly troubling provisions in the bill.

A) To provide an extra incentive for borrowers to keep paying on time, the initiative will provide a monthly balance reduction payment that goes straight towards reducing the principal balance of the mortgage loan. As long as a borrower stays current on his/her loan, he/she can get up to $1,000 each year for five years.

B) It encourages the enactment of legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of certain mortgage loans, a practice that to date has been prohibited by federal law.

C) The program applies for loans made on Jan.1, 2009 or earlier and mortgages for single-family properties that are worth up to $729,750.

The formal endorsement by the President of a bankruptcy provision that allows judges to alter the terms of certain mortgages significantly increases the risk to lenders of all mortgages, which will keep many investors on the sidelines and result in higher risk adjusted returns. We believe this will lead lenders to require additional compensation for making loans, through either larger down payments or higher interest rates, which will deter potential borrowers with good and excellent credit from owning a house. By allowing certain principal reductions through a government subsidy, the plan allows the irresponsible to enjoy the potential upside of property value appreciation in addition to the favorable mortgage rates responsible homeowners cannot obtain. This bailout’s loan origination cut-off date is also deeply troubling. If someone bought a house in 2008, as the real estate slump was widely known and in full force, and is now close to default, we believe the borrower should take the sole responsibility for his/her poor decision and cannot possibly blame anyone or anything else for their troubles.

Lastly but most importantly, the long-term moral hazard issues of rewarding irresponsibility and recklessness by having the 93% of the American people pay for the 7%’s mortgages is really disturbing for a society that has long thrived and relied on common sense and self-reliance. It is true that declining house values negatively affect the 93% and obviously we don’t want to see that continue. However, it is not obvious that keeping people in homes they cannot afford is a good solution to getting the housing market back to a sustainable equilibrium. As Rick Santelli captured on a live on air rant, it seems Americans do not want to pay for our failing neighbors’ mortgages to possibly inflate our house values.

3. (2/26/2009) President Obama’s Ambitious Budget. President Obama unveiled a $3.6 trillion budget for fiscal 2010 (ending Sep 2010), making a major down payment on his priorities and marking a historic shift toward greater government involvement in health care, energy and education, while raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The budget was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Every voluntary risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, even if the current crisis subsides in the year ahead. Based on this budget plan, the projected federal deficit will be $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the GDP, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II. The projected federal deficit will be $1.17 billion or 8% of the projected GDP for 2010. While the projected federal spending that is sending the country towards a nanny state is disturbing, the means the federal government will utilize to achieve this goal, mainly via tax increases, are damaging.

A) Based on the announced budget proposal, taxes will rise for singles earning $200,000 and couples earning $250,000, beginning in 2011, for a total windfall of $656 billion over 10 years. Income tax hikes would raise $339 billion alone. Limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions would bring in another $180 billion. Higher capital gains rates would bring in $118 billion. The estate tax scheduled to be repealed next year would be preserved, with the value of estates over $3.5 million or $7 million for couple, taxed at 45%.

B) The budget is to reap $210 billion over the next decade by limiting the ability of U.S. based multinational companies to shield overseas profits from taxation. Another $24 billion would come from hedge fund and private equity managers, whose income would be taxed at income tax rates, instead of capital gains rates. Oil and gas companies would suffer most, with the repeal of multiple tax credits and deductions.

C) It also plans to cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, forcing polluters to purchase permits for emissions that would be brought down. The sale of those permits, beginning in 2012, would reap $646 billion through 2019.

We are very leery of the tax revenue assumptions on which this budget is based. When President Reagan cut taxes, the fear was that government revenues would plunge, as a result of static projection models. These models tend to work as follows: If taxes today are 70% and income is $100, the government collects $70. If tax rates are cut to 28%, such models project the government will only collect $28. However, the reality during that time showed that as workers and entrepreneurs were given greater incentives to work and take risks, the economy flourished, and revenues to the government actually increased during the Reagan era. We fear that this new budget raises the price of making investments and taking risk, which will be a long-term losing proposition. As people adjust to new tax realities, they will scale back their work and investment activities, with the result being that real revenues to the government fall short of existing projections, as the economy slows more than expected and fewer Americans secure attractive jobs, or lose them as a result of a slower and smaller economy. The stories we have heard in the past weeks include dentists, doctors, accountants, lawyers, who are ready to work less by laying off clients and workers so they make just $249,999 a year.

Over time we have learned that the hard work of individuals is not enough, if government policies are not set to maximize individual growth potential through a rewarding mechanism. A brick layer will not achieve greater prosperity if his employer doesn’t seek to expand his business. An office worker will not receive raises if his company does not grow and become more profitable. Scientists will not create new inventions if investors don’t supply capital to fund their research and development. As taxes on capital and income increase, the barriers to grow a business will likewise increase, resulting in less business for everyone and less wealth to share around. This works to dampen the lives of all people that are not already wealthy. No one would think of adding weights to Kobe Bryant’s or Lebron James’s ankles before they play a game so the talent disparity with other players on the court can be lessened.

The “rich” are not thieves or robbers. While some may have gotten lucky or been born to the “right” family, most of them have worked their butts off, enduring long hours of study, work, uncomfortable risk, and multiple failures before they get to where they are. The “rich” are not the enemies of average folks. The “rich” create jobs for both themselves and the average folks.

Somehow, in the name of reducing income inequality, it has become fashionable to handicap the deployment of capital and application of labor. While income inequality makes for great headlines and is an easy target to advance wealth redistribution policies, it misses the key focus of a good policy – maximizing the wellbeing and life quality for the average citizen. China had perfect income equality between 1950 and 1980 when the country’s economy was in a slump. It is now the world’s 3rd largest economy, despite a rapidly expanding “wealthy few”.

History has shown wealth is best achieved by implementing policies that promote long-term sustainable growth and innovation in the economy. Ultimately that means working to lower barriers to investing capital and supplying labor. The current policies advanced in the new budget do not meet those ends. More alarming, the attitude taken by the new administration seems to echo the recent history of California, where a ravenous government has created an unrealistic budget problem, and has driven highly skilled individuals out of the state.

It is interesting that these new policies are not at all well defined or agreed or proved effective, but will likely be implemented to a system that has worked amazingly well based on different sets of principles. But here is something to consider when evaluating the risk/return of even small changes to our existing political and economic system. Over a century, the difference between an economy that grows at a 3.5% annual real rate of return versus one that grows at a 1.5% real rate of return is 7-fold. An economy worth $1 that grows at 3.5% over a century is worth $31, while the economy that grows at 1.5% is only worth $4.4. That 7-fold increase in the wealth of the economy translates into a greater living standard for all citizens versus the slower growth alternative. While faster growth will likely lead to greater income disparity, few people would willingly belong to the slower growing, more homogeneous economy.

Let’s end the letter quoting what Buffett wrote in Berkshire Hathaway’s 2008 annual report:

Amid this bad news, however, never forget that our country has faced far worse travails in the past. In the 20th Century alone, we dealt with two great wars (one of which we initially appeared to be losing); a dozen or so panics and recessions; virulent inflation that led to a 21.5% prime rate in 1980; and the Great Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment ranged between 15% and 25% for many years. America has had no shortage of challenges.

Without fail, however, we’ve overcome them. In the face of those obstacles – and many others – the real standard of living for Americans improved nearly seven-fold during the 1900s, while the Dow Jones Industrials rose from 66 to 11,497. Compare the record of this period with the dozens of centuries during which humans secured only tiny gains, if any, in how they lived. Though the path has not been smooth, our economic system has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and it will continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead.

We want to emphasize, however, that Americans do not possess a special strand of DNA, or unique wiring or have morphed into a new species. We have overcome all of those obstacles and made the US the most prosperous nation the world has seen through the ages because, and only because, our political and economic system has placed the individuals above the government, and has allowed individuals to freely pursue their dreams, and fulfill their potential. The price of our freedom and prosperity has been the dual taxes of self-responsibility and self-reliance. This country will have better days, but the question is when, and how much pain has to be endured before the right policies are in place to get the US economy’s mighty growth engine roaring again.

Comments

[baloney:]

I would be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the projected increase in tax revenues. The tax increases will serve as a disincentive to make more than $200K/$250K - Fed Tax + Social Security + Medicare + State Tax equalling 52 - 64% depending on your home state. So, these individuals must work 6-8 months a year for naught - just to feed the government's insatiable demand for money. I project a "decline" in tax revenues as a result of this change. This is wealth redistribution at its worst. Haven't we learned anything from socialist countries whose economies have failed as a result of such a philosophy?

Mar 08 01:15 PM

[Prudent Man...:]

Hey! The man who has all the answers won. The other guy, the one who didn't complain about his predecessor's bad policies, recession, reduction of our defense and intelligence, etc.

I am a four year Korean Veteran, where we lost 50,000 troops in two years. I never heard one veteran whine like some of the draft dodgers I read hear. People who go to school on "student loans" guaranteed by the taxpayers should shut up unless they earned their right by serving their country.

Without Military Defense our economy and greedy markets are dust! War is hell. Would you have wanted to have Obama, the televangelist selling his dovish Socialism, or Clinton to respond to 9/11. Not me and I know a lot about war.

Mar 08 02:10 PM

[jksisco:]

There is an Ideological 'war' now raging in Wash, DC, the "we're from the Government and we're here to help" mentality, is in all out pursuit to crush and eliminate the Constitution and all it stands for. Although there are fundamental problems with the economy, those issues are being used and manipulated to expand entitlements, restrict behavior and eradicate dissension. Coercion at this level, by the Government, cannot be tolerated by those who love Freedom and Liberty. We must object to the evils of tyranny, in whatever form or fashion. We owe future generations, through our own vigilance, the same passions that our forefathers possessed, that produced the Freedoms and Liberties we have enjoyed.

Mar 08 02:11 PM

[lorddarley:]

This so frustrating for any person who has dealt in the real world.

The make-believe stimulus is (1) a "hail Mary" to industries that may never get off the ground, (2) a handout to state governments which will not reform their work rules (police serve as flagmen on construction projcts in MA, for example), and to state governments which will not back off from their staggering underfunded pension promises to unionized workforces, and (3) a rebuff to moderate income workers (and their employers) in the real economy.

How much better if we had just given real workers in real companies a 1 year holiday on employment taxes? That would have been a 7.5% raise on the first $106,800 of wages. Employers (real employers with real employees) could have been offered a corresponding break, but only if they did not cut back payrolls.

That simple package would have cost less than $800 billion, and the money would be in paychecks right now, without going through the filter of state governments. It would have rewarded workers and encouraged current employers not to cut jobs

There are too many academics in Washington now, with no understanding that you don't throw out existing jobs with the hope you might get better jobs. There is very little in the current "stimulus" to encourage current employers to retain or hire. A tragedy.

Mar 08 03:32 PM

[rrbatch:]

Great post, Value Expectations!

Obama is a great orator (so were FDR and Hitler among previous populists and fascists), but his objectives become clearer by the day: cement his political party in power by making more than 50% of the voting population dependent on the tax-paying minority. Dick Morris calls this Obama's War on Prosperity, and I agree.

You didn't fully address the pernicious effect of the upward-spiraling federal debt, which now totals $10.9 trillion. The interest on the debt in the past fiscal year was $451 billion, or an average rate of more than 4.1%. Foreigners hold $3.1 trillion (28% of the total), with China, Japan, and the oil exporting countries possessing $1.5 trillion or 50% of the foreign holdings. Interest on the outstanding debt accounted for 15% of federal expenditures last year, with $128 billion being sent overseas to institutions that are not all friendly to US interests.

Obama proposes to incur another $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of FY 2009. If he can float this at the current 4.1% average interest rate, the interest expense on the federal budget will increase by $72 billion to $523 billion, with nearly $150 billion going overseas - if last year's interest rates hold. But given the extraordinary growth of US debt, what is the chance that interest rates won't rise? We'll be shipping more than 5% of federal expenditures to foreign institutions this year.

When will we reduce the debt burden? Not on Obama's watch. He only promises to reduce the deficit in four years, using highly dubious and unlikely projections of growth in the economy and tax receipts. As you and other posters have correctly remarked, increasing tax rates will most likely reduce federal receipts.

Where does this wind up? We haven't even addressed the unfunded future liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. There's no way these entitlements can be paid for with current tax receipts, considering a workforce that's declining relative to beneficiaries, so will this add to the deficit and national debt? I see only two possibilities: default on the US debt (like Argentina most recently) or a ravenous bout of inflation and rapidly declining dollar. Something like Carter's malaise and stagflation of the 1970s, only much worse. Coupled with drastic changes in the entitlement programs. So much for saving the "middle class".

Obama and the rest of the Washington crowd prefer to ignore these issues. Perhaps a change of control in Congress in 2010 will put a brake on Obama's malfeasance, but the recent history of Republican profligacy doesn't give me much hope. Given a more perfect union, I'd hope for devolvement of responsibilities for funding areas like medical care and education back to the states, where they constitutionally belong, leaving the federal government with its duly authorized responsibilities for national defense and not much more. Then states (like Massachusetts and California) can make commitments based on local politics without burdening the rest of the country with their schemes. But the trend is opposite.

Mar 08 04:15 PM

[jrhc:]

Not, it's unbelievable ! All this people pretending that the solution package put forward by the new administration is actually the problem! No one word about how we could get at this point of financial crisis. No one word about the deregulation policies and the greediness of top financial officers in the private system who created all this mess.

Mar 08 04:48 PM

[Sober Realist:]

Economies overly burdoned and regulated by government never thrive. Taxing producing members of society to give to the nonproducing is worse than a zero sum game.

Mar 08 06:43 PM

[Asbytec:]

"...promising to give billions of dollars in grants to local schools, to replace lost state aid, and to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments."

Personally, I see nothing wrong with spending a little money on our schools. We have been sorely remiss in educating our nation's kids. Our schools have degraded into breeding grounds for gangstas and wanna be gangstas.

We are even more remiss in producing a stock of scientists and engineers. We've dumbed ourselves down quite enough. it's time to reverse this trend and stop producing lawyers and bankers, who add nothing to GDP through paper instruments of wealth. Stimulus? Spending, who cares, it's the right thing to do.

As for medical costs, well, thank you insurance companies...Invisible Bankers (book by Tobias.) Medical care costs are through the roof, waiting times are months long. The kicker is, most power brokers really could care less about our medical care problems.

As long as the money rolls in, this issue will stay expensive and out of touch. Reform? Ha! The only reform in he wings right now is for the government to pick up some of the cost. It's the wrong reform, but it's all we got.

We need serious and sweeping insurance reform, but thanks to the all powerful insurance lobby buying deregulation from our congress, this will be almost impossible. If we could get serious reform, the government would not have to step in and help us pay for it.

That should make everyone angry. Insurance pays 40 cents on the dollar. The remaining goes to profit (which makes some of our nation's companies viable) and lobby. No other industry (I am aware of) enjoys such a position.

So, short of scraping the way we do insurance entirely and reinventing the industry, the government picking up some of the tab for the elderly, retired, fixed income people is not a desirable solution, but it is what we have. The invisible hand of Adam Smith, in the insurance industry, has been chopped off at the elbow and replaced with a robotic one that does as it's told.

Mar 08 07:38 PM

[mediapro:]

I carefully read the article and the ensuing comments, but for the most part was left shaking my head.

As for the author's world view, he is looking through glasses so dark that he must be looking at an eclipse. A few of his dark-sided views that bear repeating:

"Starting with Geithner laying an egg during his first major address to the nation about the banking crisis, things only got worse as the month progressed."

PLEASE! These folks have inherited the greatest economic crisis we will likely face in our lifetimes. They have been in office a full seven weeks. I have heard instant gratification demands from my teenage daughters more reasonable than this statement. Any economist will tell you that rising unemployment numbers, lack of access to capital and the effects of policies created by supply side ideologists and war enthusiasts that led to these new realities are much larger culprits than the effects of a speech given before there was adequate time to frame more than Paulson's three-page "plan" submitted far too late in the crisis already created.

"Here are the various plans and proposals from the federal government that have been passed, or will likely be passed in the near future, which are largely responsible for the market slide, in our opinion."

The author goes on to look at the future plans landing squarely on trying to address the immediate need of those "greedy" people who should never have thought about owning a home. As another poster pointed out, nary a mention of the lenders, the mortgage brokers, the investment bankers cum insurers cum regular bankers who devised the incredibly evil scheme of leveraging mortgage notes several times in a deregulated environment over and over through MBS, CDO and CDS strategies.

"The budget is to reap $210 billion over the next decade by limiting the ability of U.S. based multinational companies to shield overseas profits from taxation. Another $24 billion would come from hedge fund and private equity managers, whose income would be taxed at income tax rates, instead of capital gains rates. Oil and gas companies would suffer most, with the repeal of multiple tax credits and deductions."

Boo, hoo, hoo! Where is the author's outrage at the screw turned on the regular Joe year after year?

Consider the following four giant effects on tax policy that effectively transfer middle class income to the wealthy.

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue. Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid and smart energy technologies while contributing towards deficit reduction. Even an oil guy as purile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted to wake up and smell the coffee.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?

"As people adjust to new tax realities, they will scale back their work and investment activities, with the result being that real revenues to the government fall short of existing projections, as the economy slows more than expected and fewer Americans secure attractive jobs, or lose them as a result of a slower and smaller economy."

I know that the fallowing observation will immediately pin me as the dreaded SOCIALIST invading our once sacred capitalist plutocracy, but please look a bit to the north where our SOCIALIST neighbor, Canada, is doing quite nicely, thank you.

As one simple example, the cost of drugs in Canada and in many other countries in the world is roughly 50% of their cost in the U.S. The average annual administrative overhead rate for a U.S. HMO is ~27%, while Medicare's rate fluctuates between ~2-3%, comparable to the Canadian Healthcare administrative rates.

"It is interesting that these new policies are not at all well defined or agreed or proved effective, but will likely be implemented to a system that has worked amazingly well based on different sets of principles."

OK. Let's compare these undefined and unproven effective policies (after a whopping seven weeks of implmentation) against the backdrop of some very well-defined, proved ineffective policies of the past thirty years, apparently with which the author is perfectly comfortable.

Unfortunately, we have been "staying the course" for at least the past thirty years.

The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any econmic theory in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation and nary a veto over the past six years of spending bills full of Republican pork projects, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if not outright delusion.

Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course" has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted, then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth, completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something completely counter to their own self interest.

"Scientists will not create new inventions if investors don’t supply capital to fund their research and development."

DARPA
The Internet
Stem cell research
NASA

Without these evil, government-funded projects we probably would not have cell phones, orbiting communications satellites, Tang orange drink (OK, a bad example), proliferation of computer technology, etc.

As our friendly poster from Oregon expounding on the true costs of the Iraq War explained, it's not the policies of the past seven weeks that we should fear, it's a return to the world of Friedmanomics, the Laffer Curve and the dark bile spewed by this author that we should ignore and never heed again.

Mar 08 07:38 PM

[Asbytec:]

"The budget is to reap $210 billion over the next decade by limiting the ability of U.S. based multinational companies to shield overseas profits from taxation."

And this is a bad thing? Get real! Obama is also going after tax evaders who hide money in off shore accounts. Unlike Dashal, who has no place in any government office, I pay my taxes. (Yes, even though they're unconstitutional.) No wonder we can't build a single friggin bridge without running up the deficit.

Mar 08 07:43 PM

[OLD CRONE:]

GOOD POSTS , ..MY VIEW IS 'THINGS WILL NOT CHANGE UNTIL THE MONKEY IS OUT OF OFFICE, AND PRESIDENT POLOSI AND HER SEVEN DWARFS ARE OUT AS WELL ''.... JMHO. INVEST IN COPPER CLAD LEAD....BECAUSE THE ONES WHO VOTED 'HIM' IN ARE GOING TO NEED YOUR HELP, LET THEM HELP THEM SELVES TO YOUR FRIG. , HOME , CAR,...DID YOU NOT SEE THE GLAZED EYES OF THEM''''..OMG....LEGAL... THE CONSTITUTION''''

Mar 08 09:43 PM

[Bobco23:]

Mr. Rickman. You are an intelligent and experienced man, but your ultra-liberal prejudices cloud your vision and judgement.

Here is reality:

Islam has as its basic object to conquor the world (you may want to read up on Hitler and Stalin....same goal). Bin Laden, Al Qadea, and others tell us this and show us this daily. These guys are serious. Remember 911? Did you learn nothing from this? The Bush Doctrine is to eleminate the enemy before they do severe damage to our citizens and property. This is not unlike a police officer arresting an individual with a weapon threatening another before the perpetrator has an opportunity to kill his victim.

Moderate Muslims, who would rather live out happy lives in peace are easily intimidated by the violence of the true believers. The goal of the effort in Iraq was to take a chance on creating a democratic santuary in the Middle-East where moderate Muslims stood a chance of prevailing and serving as catalyists for other moderates in other countries. Without the US they stand no chance. If they stand no chance, the violent islamists will preval and ultimately we will be forced to kill a lot of people in order for us to survive. A lot of people!

Protecting the citizens of the US is the only valid responsibility of the national government. The federal government should not be involved in healt-care, mortgage default management, GM bailouts or any of the insane programs that have been forced on the citizens. Obama's programs are doomed to failure. (See the recent stock market's performance for a vote on these policies by people who have "skin in the game).

Part of the cost of protection of our nation is the aftermath costs of war and the care of our returning soldiers. We cannot spend enough money caring and rehabilitating and prospering all our servicemen.

Oh, one more thing. Man made climate change is a scam. Those who believe in it are either idiots or in on the scam.


On Mar 08 07:49 AM Invisible Costs of the Iraq War wrote:

> By James Rickman , (Author / Entrepreneur – March 8, 2009)
>
> Most breathed a sigh of relief as the new President announced the
> troops would return from Iraq by the end of August 2010. Gee, what
> a treat for their sacrifices. They return to a country trillions
> of dollars in debt, financial chaos, Wall Street bailouts, growing
> 10% unemployment, increased crime, school budget cuts, and broken
> healthcare systems. It should be no wonder if a solider or two questions
> just what their sacrifices really accomplished.
>
> So far very little open national dialogue has focused around caring
> for the returning soldiers, the “invisible” costs of the Iraq war.
> For example, a recent RAND Center- National Security Research Division
> study found that of the 1.64 million troops deployed since October
> 2001; of those an estimated 620,000 return with invisible wounds
> including, serious mental health and cognitive disabilities: post-traumatic
> stress disorder (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), major suicidal
> depression and traumatic brain injury (seekingalpha.com/symbo...).
>
>
> Given the sobering statistics, perhaps the national dialogue might
> pause just for a moment from its focus on Wall Street bailouts, to
> consider the lifetime costs associated with war time lost lives,
> injuries, and medical treatments estimated at between $700 billion
> and $1.2 trillion through 2015.
>
> For example, annual costs of a single service member diagnosed with
> moderate traumatic brain injury reached $383,227 in 2007. All of
> these related conditions affect mood, thoughts, and behavior; yet
> these invisible wounds often go unrecognized and unacknowledged.
> The effects of mental health and traumatic brain injury are sometimes
> poorly understood, leaving a large gap in knowledge related to how
> extensive the problem is or how to address it.
>
> Several studies show Iraq war veterans are found to return with very
> high rates of suicide, intimate / marriage relationship and substance
> abuse problems, unable to hold jobs, homelessness, and other disabling
> social issues. It will require significant trained medical staffing
> to coordinate the large numbers of soldiers and their families that
> will seek treatment some for the rest of their lives.
>
> Most would not dispute that mistakes were made in launching the Iraqi
> military campaign but we should accept what has occurred remaining
> focused on providing the best possible treatment for those men and
> woman returning with invisible wounds.
>
> The 1.64 million brave soldiers gave their hearts and sole in support
> of our country despite many questions that will linger on forever
> as to the mission and its effectiveness in accomplishing any significant
> tangible goals that actually improve the daily lives of Americans.
>
>
> Based on the facts one must ask former President, George W. Bush;
> was the Iraq war more important than investing in competitive jobs,
> better education for our kids, crumbling infrastructure and healthcare
> for the 48-million plus Americans with no medical coverage?
>
> Are Americans more secure as a result of the Iraqi war? Was it all
> simply a misguided distraction during years of opportunity to investment
> in rebuilding at a predictably critical strategic time that would
> have enabled the United States of America to maintain it’s now lost
> global leadership role.
>
> Were there other critical national security interests to begin planning
> for such as the coming “clean water” crisis, already being addressed
> by many Asian countries, that has the potential to devastate large
> segments of global populations effecting food supply, disease sanitation,
> and employment?
>
> For example, California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenagger’s declared
> a state-of-emergency due to draught and clean water issues that have
> cost that state over $2.8 billion and 95,000 jobs lost in 2008.
>
>
> This is only a small preview of the coming global clean water crisis
> that could leave 20% of the Earth’s species extinct, one fact already
> being studied by leading scientist such Dr. James Martin of the Oxford
> University Institute of Science & Civilization.
>
> Perhaps these questions bare serious scrutiny and truthful answers,
> so that future decisions of national security involving trillions
> of tax-payer dollars are better spent next time on directly improving
> people’s lives.
>
> As the new President, Obama stated, “the time of reckoning” has arrived.
> Every one of our citizens should make standard of living sacrifices
> for the good of the whole. By 2025 the worldwide population is calculated
> to exceed eight (8) billion people, a level that will consume resources
> beyond the capacity found on Earth.
>
> Obama made his initial opening move on a health care overhaul last
> week: his speech to Congress and a budget that set aside $634 billion
> over 10 years as a down payment on coverage for all Americans. It’s
> a goal that could ultimately cost $1 trillion or more.
>
> The Obama Health Plan attempts to expand coverage while slowing the
> rate of increase in costs. Administration officials say they hope
> that will lead to a more affordable system, without the coverage
> gaps that now leave an estimated 48-million people uninsured.
>
> Regardless of how the crisis dialogue is often presented, the fact
> remains starting in 2010 the Iraq mission will end as thousands of
> soldiers that have been deployed for months and years will return
> to our country. Over one-third of the returning soldiers are known
> to require temporary and costly lifetime disability treatment for
> invisible wounds, a symptom of their sacrifice to our country. <br/>
>
> The costs of being misguided with neat campaign slogans is the real,
> “shock and awe” that will haunt America not in some far off land
> but rather increasingly close at home requiring we deliver truthful
> answers to the people of our country so that we can find innovative
> practical solutions.
>
> How could we have been lead so astray? JFK once said, “We have nothing
> to fear but fear it- self”. In this case these are fitting words
> to ponder, we might all take a moment to examine the depth of “fear”
> tactics that were used to manipulate many decent people.
>
> Did the facts ever really exist to justify launching the decade long
> war costing trillions of American tax-payer dollars that resulted
> in the displacement of an estimated 5.2 million Iraqi people?
>
> Instead of chasing “terrorists” and non-existent WMDs in Iraq, should
> we have used that money here at home to rebuild tangible national
> security interests including, innovative training and education systems,
> sustainable infrastructure and affordable health care?
>
> Throughout history America has always lead the world not only as
> an economic power but even more important is its defining role as
> the “truthful, moral and ethical” beckon of light inspiring people
> worlwide.
>
> Perhaps, we should each thoughtfully consider the millions of citizens,
> soldiers and their family’s lives that could have been spared the
> scars of deep wounds that will cost this country and others worldwide
> for generations. Finally it’s useful to remember the guide of directly
> improving people’s daily lives in all our future decisions.
>
> About Author
>
> As the Founding principal partner of Sustainable Virtual BiZ, LLC.
> Mr. Rickman has over 18-years of enterprise experience and he’s an
> expert in sustainable “green” virtual business support services.
> He is a member of the Oregon Sustainability Angels Network - venture
> capital association.
>
> He is a Founding Director of Business Development for Artel Software,
> Inc., IMAGRAPH Corporation, and Interactive MicroSystems, Inc. He
> is a sought after published technical evangelist including COMDEX
> (Consumer Electronics) and the (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> National Association of Broadcasters. He holds advanced degrees from
> Boston University.
>
> Mr. Rickman enjoys involvement in educational service roles within
> the Portland State University, Hillsboro, and Beaverton, Oregon community.
> His hobbies include reading, golf, SCUBA, hiking, kayaking, and fishing.
> sustainablevirtualbiz....

Mar 08 10:10 PM

[Mark Bern:]

Excellent article! This really does underscore the lack of economic understanding used to wield the billions (nay trillions) literally being thrown at the problems we face today and created for future generations. How on earth will America pay for what has been done and how will we pay for what yet needs to be done?

On the brighter side, at least our system can eventually get back on track. As a nation, we've done it before and are quite capable of righting the ship again.

What worries me are the more than 100 countries around the world that either the World Bank or IMF (I don't recall which) reports are going under (I assume that means going into default on obligations with no visible means of getting back on their feet). My concern is with the potential for civil unrest that could spread; revolutions and toppling governments. The world could be on the brink of taking a few steps backward in terms of free trade and capitalism during the coming decade.

Such events may become a drag on the global economy, albeit a very small one (since most of those countries are very small and don't contribute dramitcally to world growth). And will our leaders be decerning enough to stay out of where we don't belong?

Mar 08 10:41 PM

[sether:]

Prudent Man, Thank you for your service, as they say. We do not have a draft anymore, by the way, so no one has to dodge it. We really should though. The Iraq war would never have happened if we had a draft back then. It's an easy choice to send an army of 'volunteers' into the meat grinder. It's either the Army or prison for alot of these folks. Things do not work the way they did when you were 20. Your generation, previously in power, screwed us. You may be a great guy personally, but you bought the Reagan poison and continue to beleive in it. Hey, my grandfather did as well, and he killed Japs hand-to-hand in the Pacific islands, I loved the man. The election of Obama means we have moved on. We recognize the policies of the last 30 years to be rubbish, and we want something else. Label it what you want, it's here. These stock market pussy parasites don't give a sh*t about you or your service, despite all the +++ comment ratings. Don't let them fool you. They obviously know nothing of sacrifice. Sacrifice is putting aside your immediate self interest, be it for 4 years or only a micro-second, for the betterment of people who do not exist yet.


On Mar 08 02:10 PM Prudent Man CFA wrote:

> Hey! The man who has all the answers won. The other guy, the one
> who didn't complain about his predecessor's bad policies, recession,
> reduction of our defense and intelligence, etc.
>
> I am a four year Korean Veteran, where we lost 50,000 troops in two
> years. I never heard one veteran whine like some of the draft dodgers
> I read hear. People who go to school on "student loans" guaranteed
> by the taxpayers should shut up unless they earned their right by
> serving their country.
>
> Without Military Defense our economy and greedy markets are dust!
> War is hell. Would you have wanted to have Obama, the televangelist
> selling his dovish Socialism, or Clinton to respond to 9/11. Not
> me and I know a lot about war.

Mar 09 12:33 AM

[sether:]

Bobco, you fearful pussy. You slept with the lights on as a kid, didn't you. Probly still do. Islamofascism, or whatever it's being called now, is the new international bogeyman (now along with 'socialism' at home). Russia imploded and those in power needed a new tool with which to control your little mind. Enter the terrorists. 9/11 should have been the END of something, not the beginning. Our response to 9/11 was designed to inflate the terrorist bogeyman. After 9/11 we had the world's sympathy and support, including moderate muslim nations and peoples. Without ANY action on our part, extremist factions of islam would become exactly that, extremist. These tiny factions would have been further marginalized as the vast majority of rational people of all stripes rejected the obviosly horrific actions of extremists. It's tough to recruit in that environment. Instead, we give nut-jobs everywhere something to rally around; Gitmo, Abu-Ghirab, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, an invasion of a muslim country which had nothing do with the initial attacks, ignoring the true source of the problem. We actively drove the recruitment and metastatic processes of extremist organizations worldwide. This was done on purpose.
And please do not bother to lecture us from the official talking points. Don't you think we've heard them? Millions of times? What am I 10 years old?
If you are so worried about people being killed (lots of people!), stay the hell out of your car. Since 9/11 over 350,000 poeple have been killed in car accidents. Why hasn't anyone launched a preemptive strike on cars? And this is not apples to oranges either. Deaths due to terrorism and deaths due to car accidents are both results of our automobile-based economy, which is in turn powered by OIL. Why do we have to hear about the 3,000 9/11 victims ad-infinitum from you pussies in support of your beloved war, but nary a word about 40,000 deaths PER YEAR on our highways. There is no hope for you.


On Mar 08 10:10 PM Bobco23 wrote:

> Mr. Rickman. You are an intelligent and experienced man, but your
> ultra-liberal prejudices cloud your vision and judgement.
>
> Here is reality:
>
> Islam has as its basic object to conquor the world (you may want
> to read up on Hitler and Stalin....same goal). Bin Laden, Al Qadea,
> and others tell us this and show us this daily. These guys are serious.
> Remember 911? Did you learn nothing from this? The Bush Doctrine
> is to eleminate the enemy before they do severe damage to our citizens
> and property. This is not unlike a police officer arresting an individual
> with a weapon threatening another before the perpetrator has an opportunity
> to kill his victim.
>
> Moderate Muslims, who would rather live out happy lives in peace
> are easily intimidated by the violence of the true believers. The
> goal of the effort in Iraq was to take a chance on creating a democratic
> santuary in the Middle-East where moderate Muslims stood a chance
> of prevailing and serving as catalyists for other moderates in other
> countries. Without the US they stand no chance. If they stand no
> chance, the violent islamists will preval and ultimately we will
> be forced to kill a lot of people in order for us to survive. A lot
> of people!
>
> Protecting the citizens of the US is the only valid responsibility
> of the national government. The federal government should not be
> involved in healt-care, mortgage default management, GM bailouts
> or any of the insane programs that have been forced on the citizens.
> Obama's programs are doomed to failure. (See the recent stock market's
> performance for a vote on these policies by people who have "skin
> in the game).
>
> Part of the cost of protection of our nation is the aftermath costs
> of war and the care of our returning soldiers. We cannot spend enough
> money caring and rehabilitating and prospering all our servicemen.
>
>
> Oh, one more thing. Man made climate change is a scam. Those who
> believe in it are either idiots or in on the scam.

Mar 09 01:33 AM

[Amitabha Mu...:]

All these years America grew by allowing big companies to grow into giant multinationals and now when countries like India has chosen a similar path and seeing its economy getting bigger everyday suddenly America has made a U turn. It is all very wrong. This naked hatred towards the rich and successful Americans and the idea of snatching their wealth through excessive taxation will mean the last days of the great civilization are near.
Instead of enlarging the national debt to such a high level that future generations will have no opportunity to generate wealth but to spend all the income of the state for paying interest to the debts taken by earlier generations, some brainstorming could be done.
Instead of spending so many billions of dollars on health care one thing could be easily done. There are many Indian or Chinese or east european hospitals are there who would be very eager to have their presence in America. So a big city could be built up where a large number of such low cost but high quality hospitals would come up with a very low monthly insurance payment. With so much competetion America based private health care system would also have to lower their cost to survive.
Same things applies to education also.

Mar 09 08:39 AM

[JayPro:]

Well mediapro, if you are going to use words like puerile, you should pay attention to the spelling. Excessive head shaking maybe?

Real pros,(media or otherwise) walk the talk.




On Mar 08 07:38 PM mediapro wrote:

> I carefully read the article and the ensuing comments, but for the
> most part was left shaking my head.
>
> As for the author's world view, he is looking through glasses so
> dark that he must be looking at an eclipse. A few of his dark-sided
> views that bear repeating:
>
> "Starting with Geithner laying an egg during his first major address
> to the nation about the banking crisis, things only got worse as
> the month progressed."
>
> PLEASE! These folks have inherited the greatest economic crisis
> we will likely face in our lifetimes. They have been in office a
> full seven weeks. I have heard instant gratification demands from
> my teenage daughters more reasonable than this statement. Any economist
> will tell you that rising unemployment numbers, lack of access to
> capital and the effects of policies created by supply side ideologists
> and war enthusiasts that led to these new realities are much larger
> culprits than the effects of a speech given before there was adequate
> time to frame more than Paulson's three-page "plan" submitted far
> too late in the crisis already created.
>
> "Here are the various plans and proposals from the federal government
> that have been passed, or will likely be passed in the near future,
> which are largely responsible for the market slide, in our opinion."
>
>
> The author goes on to look at the future plans landing squarely on
> trying to address the immediate need of those "greedy" people who
> should never have thought about owning a home. As another poster
> pointed out, nary a mention of the lenders, the mortgage brokers,
> the investment bankers cum insurers cum regular bankers who devised
> the incredibly evil scheme of leveraging mortgage notes several times
> in a deregulated environment over and over through MBS, CDO and CDS
> strategies.
>
> "The budget is to reap $210 billion over the next decade by limiting
> the ability of U.S. based multinational companies to shield overseas
> profits from taxation. Another $24 billion would come from hedge
> fund and private equity managers, whose income would be taxed at
> income tax rates, instead of capital gains rates. Oil and gas companies
> would suffer most, with the repeal of multiple tax credits and deductions."
>
>
> Boo, hoo, hoo! Where is the author's outrage at the screw turned
> on the regular Joe year after year?
>
> Consider the following four giant effects on tax policy that effectively
> transfer middle class income to the wealthy.
>
> 1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors
> in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided
> to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale
> tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to
> bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess
> we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American
> taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.
>
> The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue.
> Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax
> and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while
> returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid
> and smart energy technologies while contributing towards deficit
> reduction. Even an oil guy as purile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted
> to wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> 2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar,
> milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply
> with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the
> corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's
> neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency,
> gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward
> for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs
> even the oil subsidies.
>
> 3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic
> worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore
> accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax
> code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to
> condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted
> rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of
> those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the
> incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system.
> Look where that system of rewards has put us.
>
> 4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100
> K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?
>
> "As people adjust to new tax realities, they will scale back their
> work and investment activities, with the result being that real revenues
> to the government fall short of existing projections, as the economy
> slows more than expected and fewer Americans secure attractive jobs,
> or lose them as a result of a slower and smaller economy."
>
> I know that the fallowing observation will immediately pin me as
> the dreaded SOCIALIST invading our once sacred capitalist plutocracy,
> but please look a bit to the north where our SOCIALIST neighbor,
> Canada, is doing quite nicely, thank you.
>
> As one simple example, the cost of drugs in Canada and in many other
> countries in the world is roughly 50% of their cost in the U.S. The
> average annual administrative overhead rate for a U.S. HMO is ~27%,
> while Medicare's rate fluctuates between ~2-3%, comparable to the
> Canadian Healthcare administrative rates.
>
> "It is interesting that these new policies are not at all well defined
> or agreed or proved effective, but will likely be implemented to
> a system that has worked amazingly well based on different sets of
> principles."
>
> OK. Let's compare these undefined and unproven effective policies
> (after a whopping seven weeks of implmentation) against the backdrop
> of some very well-defined, proved ineffective policies of the past
> thirty years, apparently with which the author is perfectly comfortable.
>
>
> Unfortunately, we have been "staying the course" for at least the
> past thirty years.
>
> The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand
> of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than
> any econmic theory in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics
> /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play
> orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank,
> and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.<br/>
>
> Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income
> up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation
> and nary a veto over the past six years of spending bills full of
> Republican pork projects, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion
> dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt
> ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek
> is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if
> not outright delusion.
>
> Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one
> of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics
> so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan
> used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
>
>
> If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course"
> has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted,
> then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth,
> completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next
> lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something
> completely counter to their own self interest.
>
> "Scientists will not create new inventions if investors don’t supply
> capital to fund their research and development."
>
> DARPA
> The Internet
> Stem cell research
> NASA
>
> Without these evil, government-funded projects we probably would
> not have cell phones, orbiting communications satellites, Tang orange
> drink (OK, a bad example), proliferation of computer technology,
> etc.
>
> As our friendly poster from Oregon expounding on the true costs of
> the Iraq War explained, it's not the policies of the past seven weeks
> that we should fear, it's a return to the world of Friedmanomics,
> the Laffer Curve and the dark bile spewed by this author that we
> should ignore and never heed again.
>
>

Mar 09 01:33 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

On Mar 08 04:48 PM jrhc wrote:

> Not, it's unbelievable ! All this people pretending that the solution
> package put forward by the new administration is actually the problem!
> No one word about how we could get at this point of financial crisis.
> No one word about the deregulation policies and the greediness of
> top financial officers in the private system who created all this
> mess.

You are right - you did not give one word about it.

Many others have mused quite extensively in other articles on this site and others.

Although how we got here must be repeated for those who yet do not understand; musing about policy and the future is of grave importance.

Your statement of - "No one word about the deregulation policies and the greediness of top financial officers in the private system who created all this mess." - should have included Government Collusion With Said "Top Financial Officers". Since you did not include this addendum, I must assume that you have no real understanding of the Complexity Of Corruption.

To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

Hasty Conclusion Is Usually Wrong.

There is a lot more Grey in the world than Black or White.

Mar 09 07:15 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Please forgive the typos and grammar - too quick with the submit button.


On Mar 09 07:15 PM PainfullyAware wrote:

> On Mar 08 04:48 PM jrhc wrote:

Mar 09 07:17 PM

[mediapro:]

Apologies to the school teacher, but what an excellent, responsive analysis to the points raised!! With all of the obvious intellect bottled up within your mind, you should write books instead of two sentence responses about proper spelling.

Want to give a go at responses to the points in addition to spelling lessons?



On Mar 09 01:33 PM JayPro wrote:

> Well mediapro, if you are going to use words like puerile, you should
> pay attention to the spelling. Excessive head shaking maybe?
>
> Real pros,(media or otherwise) walk the talk.
>
>

Mar 09 08:05 PM