Sarah Palin: Wall Street's Candidate 116 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Everyone's talking about Sarah Palin. Thank goodness for investors, she is pro Wall Street. Her Wednesday night RNC speech struck a cord with businesses across the country. This self proclaimed 'gal from Alaska' is already shaking things up with the substance that she offered up on important economic issues.
1) Oil (USO) is heading lower, much lower. As Governor she began a forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. She said,
"Families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil... When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve...we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines... build more nuclear plants... create jobs with clean coal... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."
Investors are finally catching on to the fact that alternatives to oil are coming and that America is serious about our oil independence. Since oil reached its high in the 140s, we at www.lonepeakportfolios.com have forecast a return to historical levels of $30-$50 a barrel. Political pressure from both Republicans and Democrats might push oil to those levels sooner rather than later. I wonder what the oil guru over at Goldman Sachs is thinking now? He made a very irresponsible call for oil to return to $150 this year and $200 next year after it was clear that a downtrend had begun. I hope that investors in the 53 new commodity ETFs are listening to the 'real' oil data loud and clear; new oil is plentiful and alternatives are rapidly coming on line.
2) Governor Palin will cut spending and she likes eBay (EBAY). If her track record of managing the Alaskan budget is a good indicator, the US dollar (UUP) should be in for a nice ride if this Republican ticket is elected. A balanced budget will restore confidence in the greenback, especially as a slowdown spreads throughout Europe and emerging markets. Governor Palin said,
"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary. Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes."
3) One theory on the market's negative bias since Labor Day is that fear of an Obama victory will put further burdens on consumers and on the economy. Governor Palin expressed her commitment to lower taxes as she made it clear:
"The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes... raise payroll taxes... raise investment income taxes... raise the death tax... raise business taxes... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
Investors are hoping that the renewed energy brought to the Republican ticket by Sarah Palin might reap tax benefits for Wall Street.
At first glance it would appear that America has lucked out with this candidate who vows to clean up Washington with her fellow maverick, John McCain. She came out of nowhere and has made quite a splash on the national scene. Even the seasoned public speaker Rudy Guliani was left in awe at her natural ability to connect with viewers and relay her specific message. No matter how the media tries to spin it, investors are excited about Sarah Palin. Perhaps her ambition for lower oil, a strong US dollar and lower taxes will lift the plague of pessimism that has hovered over this market for too long. God bless America.
Disclosure: Short USO, Long UUP.
Related Articles
|
This article has 116 comments:
By the way, did you know that she is the most popular governor in because she took the money from the windfall profits tax (and the money from the "bridge to nowhere" which wasn't returned to the Federal Government") and was distributed to the residents of Alaska. Every man, woman and child got a check for $1,200.
So, when you go to the gas pump and pay a fortune for gas remember that some of that price is going to Alaskan residents in a direct transfer payment.
By the way, the pols of Venezuala, Iran and Russia are popular as well and for the same reason...they take money from Americans and give it to their citizens.
www.lewrockwell.com/ro...
Their uncontrolled and reckless spending, record monetary inflation and record budget deficits have dangerously compromised the health of our economy and have threatened our national security.
I'm not particularly fond of the Democrat's economic policies. But the hypocrisy of the Republicans is unbelievable. How in the world can they criticize anyone after running our nation's economy into the ground? How can they criticize anyone after their unregulated policies fostered the fraudulent lending practices that are bring down our financial institutions?
God help America.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...
LMFAO.
Both parties are bought and paid for, the elites laugh as we argue over Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. But it would be nice to have a president who values thought, and can speak a whole sentence. Obama has the potential to give great radio talks during the next Depression, like Roosevelt did.
If you invest, you can't afford to vote as a limosine liberal this November.
"Note: The first 4 years were republican congress. The next four have been democrat controlled."
Sorry mangolfer, you got it wrong. The Democratic controlled congress was seated in January of 2007.
She's got more executive experience and competence than the Dim Presidential Candidate BHO WHO!!
Way to go Sarah! Expose the hypocriry of the DIMLIB elitist left.
To all you leftie DIMLIB socialists, Your "boy" has no clothes and no experience to speak of other than running for office.
Those are the Facts Jack, and to claim otherwise would be merely a Liberal Perversion of the Truth!
".....Obama/Biden will drain our investment accounts with silly taxes and spend the money on politically correct social programs that don't actually do anything useful."
Gee, George Bush and company have done a pretty good job draining my investment accounts. What exactly has he actually done that has been "useful"?
Somebody earlier said the elite just laugh all the way to the bank, and that is not completely accurate, however true it may be. (spoken like a true politician) OK ,so why not just elect Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura?
Think congress or senate would support these guys? Ron Paul is a true Republican, not the plastic version you are voting for. Jesse is a true governor, tested in battle and he also tells it like it is. Why do American's always end up fighting over such lackluster presidential candidates? Because they are "herded" into political camps and easily put under the Delphi(debate tactic developed by RandCorp in the sixties)spell maybe?
C'mon America you can do better than this - stop yelling at each other and start researching before you destroy each other. The elite love to see the gladiator small guy's tear each other to pieces! Quit the habit.
Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'... terrifying.
Me: Palin a "danger to our economy, our democracy, our Constitution, a messenger from the religious right bigots and nutjobs."
ditto for the old man who has admitted frequently and publicly he doesn't know anything about economics... just what we need.. he can pile the final dirt on the grave that dumbya dug for us, our children, our grandchildren
2. "Her Wednesday night RNC speech struck a cord with businesses across the country."
The speech ended at 11pm, and you know this by 7am?
3. "This self proclaimed 'gal from Alaska' is already shaking things up with the substance that she offered up on important economic issues."
Looking forward to you actually describing this substance. The quotes you provide are just so much fluff. Substance is in details.
4. "As Governor she began a forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."
Everyone's aware that this pipeline goes to Alberta, right?
5. "If her track record of managing the Alaskan budget is a good indicator, the US dollar (UUP) should be in for a nice ride if this Republican ticket is elected."
Tell me - who COULDN'T manage the Alaska budget? Of its $12+ billion of revenue, more than half comes from oil royalties and production taxes and federal government payments. Add to this the profits from investing past oil tax revenues and the annual oil dividends paid to every Alaskan resident, and the state government is paid for practically entirely by oil profits. Is there any other state with so few tough fiscal choices? Does this really give you confidence in her ability to manage the federal budget? Would not Romney have been a better choice if this was a priority?
6. "A balanced budget will restore confidence in the greenback..."
What in the speech led you to believe that Palin has any ability, or inclination, to balance the budget? Did she even say that she would try?
7. Governor Palin said, "I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary. Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes."
(A) There are differing opinions about the Alaska budget; a Democratic member of the Alaska House of Representatives wrote in the Washington Post yesterday that the operating budget is growing at 10% per year. And with oil prices rising, is there any surprise that Alaska has a surplus? Is there another state where rising oil prices benefit government revenues?
(B) Governor Palin operates in a government with a line-item veto, something the President does not have. The absence of the line-item veto makes budget cutting much, much more difficult.
8. "Governor Palin expressed her commitment to lower taxes as she made it clear: 'The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes... raise payroll taxes... raise investment income taxes... raise the death tax... raise business taxes... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.'"
Do tell, Jason, where in the quoted text does Palin express any commitment to lower taxes? All I read are misrepresentations of Obama's stated tax plans.
---
Now, how about we leave this politics stuff to other sites?
(It *was* a joke, right?)
2) "Governor Palin will cut spending" What, like Bush promised to? How exactly will this work when McCain is spending trillions of dollars on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and North Korea? McCain has never seen an idea for a war that he didn't like - witness his willingness to fight nuclear-armed Russia over a speck of land in the middle of Asia. Both politicians have voted for tons of pork for their constituents and Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the country - each resident gets $1,000 checks each year just for living there. If McCain wins, buy foreign currencies or TIPS. Just don't expect a balanced budget.
3) Perhaps all those ellipses (...) in the statements about Obama raising taxes are where we should insert "on people making over a quarter million a year" or "for millionaires." Besides, the inflation inspired by Bush-era war deficits has crushed the value of American earnings and savings worse than any tax hike. They just borrow from the Chinese, devalue the currency, and successfully convince the unsophisticated that this is in their economic interest. About $3 of the $4 you are paying for gas or a gallon of milk is this inflation tax. But nobody blames the politicians for this. Brilliant.
The 2003 Tax Act reduced Ordinary Tax Rates on worker's incomes and reduced the Long-Term Cap Gains Tax Rate from 20% to 15% + introduced a 15% Maximum 'Qualified Dividends' Tax Rate:
RESULT: Fed Tax Revenues collected INCREASED 14% in 2004, 12% in 2005, 9% in 2006 and 10% in 2007.
President Jack Kennedy, the last economically literate Democratic President also DEFENDED the NATION and REDUCED TAX RATES on Workers and Savers.
President Bush may be a horrific communicator, 3 years too long in delivering the successes of the troop surge & not vetoing the former Republican spending excesses, . . but on the BIG PICTURE Presidential Duties to DEFEND the NATION, and promote LIBERTY and our OPPORTUNITY to define and solve 'our own family problems', he gets an "A".
Big Government centric Obama/Biden with a Reid/Pelosi Congress would be 'piling on' to America's woes.
McCain/Palin is the only antidote to balance a Socialist Congress & Obama/Biden that would 'forfeit' the precious blood and treasure expended and increase tax rates on American workers and savers forcing 'increased dependency' on Government Gone Wild !
Are you nuts? This family is a perfect example of the great American family, that lives its life and sticks together and supports each other.
Yoiu should be ashamed of yourself. You prefer a bs'er elitist who never worked a day in his life, never served his country - in the military OR the Peace Corp - who's only self stated executive experience (sic) is "running for office" who hangs and pals around and does business with convicted slumlandlord felons, admitted racists, and who throws his poor grandmother under the bus to protect himself while he allows his poor brother to lead a life of desperation = destitute on 50 cents a week in Africa? Supkis = Kiss this!!! IMO you are beyond the pale, and are being intentionally obtuse as no one can really be that F stupid.
IMO
To McCain: Buddy you sure know how to pick em.!!
To Sarah Palin: The Dims are turning Pale-in response to your outstanding positions and executive experience.
Palin is right, out of ALL the candidates in this race, there IS ONLY ONE who has actually fought for us. Thank you John McCain for your service and for pickin Palin. Truly a wonderful and exciting ticket.
I agree, it's terrible that the governments of the countries/regions that we extract oil from demand the majority of the profit for their people. I mean, it's not like those natural resources, by the nature of geopolitics, belong to the people of those areas. I mean really, if an expanding third world country started a coal company and wanted to mine coal in the world's richest reserve, we'd totally let them in an not tax them at all! Honestly, government officials in places like Nigeria, Kazakhstan, etc. that require bribes to sell their peoples' resources to us with little return for those whose' interests they are supposed to be protecting are so corrupt - we Americans have the right to take everything away from everyone else in every other country because they're all inferior. Those officials should know that and just GIVE US the damn oil!
What I'm saying is that you're an ignorant moron.
As a former Alaskan way back in the 1980 era I received the annual check from oil profits just like every Alaskan meeting the one year residency requirement. Ms. Palin :framed" this last check as somehow her accomplishment and that she could do something similar for all other Americans if just elected. Rubbish.
Take a closer look at where her moral priorities really lie. For thirty or more years there has been a great effort to move the capital of the state from Juneau to Willow, just down the road from Wasilla. Those who push for the move care little about the tremendous costs involved in relationship to the benefits to state voters. They do, however have great interest in their personal future economic prospects, especially if they have had the guidance to acquire raw land in the middle of no where along the road from Anchorage to Wasilla, and then on to Willow where the Brazilia of the Tundra is to be built. For an interesting read pick up John McFee's book , Coming Up In The Country. It is a classic and more fully describes how nice people grovel at the scent of getting big bucks out of the project.
Great point, and it's a shame that McCain/Palin may pay for the sins of Bushonomics II. I'm a registered Republican that once believed the Kennedy family has done the most irreparable harm to the US of any family, but the Bushies have outdone even the Kennedy's. I don't think McCain will spend like Bush I or Bush II (he's been one of what, five, deficit hawks in the Senate?), and voters sent a message in 2006 about Bushonomics.
I love McCain/Palin and I truly think divided government (R White House, D Congress) is our best option, but fear that Americans are in a mood for an all Dem show in DC.
It was 8 years after the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center before 9/11/01. Does this mean in 1999, 2000 or 2001 (through 9/10) that we should have praised the effectiveness of Clinton's anti-terrorist activity?
I think that we need to stop taking positions based on our pre-disposed political prejudices and start thinking for ourselves. My opinion: both parties and both presidents of the past 16 years have made monumental mistakes and miscalculations. If we could start thinking outside the box of pre-disposed political prejudice, things might improve.
The bad news: This type of awareness has rarely happened in our country's history. The cycle repeated again and again has been to throw out intrenched interests with "reformers" who then work to establish their own entrenched interests.
nasdaq down 41, dow down 225
the street KNOWS what these two economic know-nothings would do to the economy
After 8 years of a stupid, lying sack of shit running our country and economy into the ground, they want 4 more years of the same. I guess that is great for all the greedy SOBs [Comment edited for abusive language. Commenter put on notice] who thrive off of selling our country down the toilet.
markets are speaking today, here and around the world.
As for Palin, she acts upon principles she believes in. That is more than a lot of public servants who leave their principles behind when they take public office. She is only dangerous to those who have no principles and no personal belief system.
The final accounting will come after she and her running partner have served office, not before. That is the chance the voters need to take.
I would not put my bets on Obama. He is not only inexperienced, but he hides his Socialist/Marxist philosophy behind a well-groomed and smart exterior. And look what Marxism/Socialism has done to Eastern Europe and China in the past 100 years? The most disastrous human experiment in history! All you liberals better read up on your history and measure Obama against the ruler of that part of human history. ....where markets, economies and human souls were dice in a five year plan.
Yes, the Republicans cut tax rates in 2003. Did tax revenue increase as you stated? Not exactly, but it did increase. Can you argue causation? Yes, but not the way you'd like. Otherwise, the Clinton tax increase should have been followed by lower tax revenue (it wasn't) and the Bush 2001 tax cuts should have been followed by higher tax revenue (it wasn't).
Here's a bit of logic for you. The 2001 law created yearly decreases in certain tax rates - which is a specific incentive to defer income, where possible, to take advantage of lower rates expected in the future. The 2003 law immediately instituted all of those expected future cuts, so economic actors no longer had that incentive to defer income. Logically, this series of events would cause lower tax revenue in the years following 2001 and a wave of tax revenue in 2004 once all the expected cuts were enacted; the data reflect this theory.
Now extend the story. An owner of an asset with significant capital gains has an incentive to sell an asset when taxes are expected to rise in the future; realizations increased significantly following the passage of the 2003 law, which had 10-year sunset provisions.
Last part to this story: what happens to overall, long-term tax revenue if taxpayers time their capital gains to occur when taxes are temporarily low?
Now, let's consider the real incentive aspects of regular income tax rates. If your marginal tax rate goes down (for example) 5%, do you work harder? Are you able to increase your hours by, say, 2 hours per week to take advantage of higher after-tax wages? Fact is, most Americans do not have such flexibility, and of those who do, small changes in tax rates are not a big driver of hours worked. For those not working, a 5% lower tax rated doesn't strike me as the motivator that will get them to work. So it should come as no surprise that there is no statistically significant correlation between small changes in income tax rates and changes in the growth rate of national income.
As for your attempt to co-opt the Kennedy tax cut, that dog don't hunt. Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. Compare the effect of this versus the 2001/2003 capital gains cut from 28% to 15%. Of the top earner's last million dollars, the Kennedy cut increased the amount the taxpayer kept by 233%; the Bush cuts increased the capital gains kept by the wealthiest taxpayer by 19%. These huge divergence of these two numbers shows how incomparable these tax changes are.
And this note about the Democrats controlling Congress these last two years is patently false. They control what comes out of committee and what comes to the floor for a vote. They dont have a large enough majority to override a Presidential veto so for all intents and purposes, the outcome of any vote is still controlled by the GOP. Calling congress as being controlled by the Democrats is a media soundbite from the corporate agenda.
As far as the comments on socialism/marxism goes, we are about as far from that as it gets. We are on the fascist track, a collusion of government and the corporate world and in our case, especially the financial sector.
1. The Lower 48 has ample supplies of natural gas & we have prices hedged on Canadian gas for years to come. We have even more gas coming online in the Lower 48. So, we don't really need Alaskan gas. Therefore, the "earmarked" money for the Alaskan project would have been better spent expanding our gas infrastructure down here & modernizing & increasing the capacity of our electrical grid.
2. The Alaskan natural gas pipeline is a feasible project only if natural gas prices are very high. This is why it remained on the drawing board for 30 yrs.
3. It is one of the largest construction projects in history, but the contract was awarded not to a US company, but to a Canadian company.
Let's do something truly radical this season and elect two mature, thinking adults into office, not a couple more "divinely" inspired cranks with a lifestyle agenda and a bad attitude.
What I will say now is that you are either on drugs or in need to wake up from your dream. Oil prices will never abate to $30-$50 a barrel and that is just pie in the sky dreaming.
I read your article and found your enthusiasm to be genuine however you are unrealistic about the state of oil prices and need to come down to earth.
Down 250 points this morning! That isd not what I call a vote of confidence.
Look for an Obama Landslide in November.
One clarification on PIAs comments on national safety - between 1998 and 2003 there were over 20 attacks on American interests globally (other than 9/11) killing over 2000 people- the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the embassies in Africa, the first World Trade Center, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Lockerbee, Egypt Air flight 990 off Massachusetts, etc. Since 2004 there have been none. Something is working.
Some have said that it's okay for Alaska to be a welfare state, because of the oil they provide. I disagree. Either you're conservative or not. Palin is not. Those who support Palin are not.
End Republican-backed welfare.
www.taxfoundation.org/... (note that it's not just Alaska -- the more likely a state is to vote Republican, the more likely they are to be taking in more Federal tax dollars than they pay. Real conservative.)
I guess you don't want to hear about the 3,668 American troops killed in Iraq since 2004, right?
There needs to be balance into the economy between supply and demand, instead of this supply side nonsense.
Actually, Obama's a constitutional law scholar among other things... I would suggest that this fact is what REALLY terrifies the republikaaners the most... he may stand up for peoples' constitutional rights which the republikaans trampled into the ground in their quest to turn America into a police state.
Too funny.
Markets are too funny too... looks like they're terrified George and the hockey mom will get a chance to out dumb dumbya.
Those who smear Palin as a religious nut are not reading about her term as Governor. She largely ignored social issues and focused on economic and oil issues. She is a Christian. So are 90% of Americans! So what!
At last - something about economics. Of course, anybody who thinks there's been anything close to socialism in this country or in the platform of any prominent candidate on either side of the aisle since, oh, the second Nixon administration, knows nothing about economics.
Anybody remember wage and price controls?
If McCain dies who will be Commander-in-Chief? (really)
If you think its Sarah, you should be medicated immediately.
And why would McCain put our nation in harm's way for political gain?
MCCAIN MAY BE A MAVERICK, BUT HE IS NOT A PATRIOT.
www.opednews.com/artic...
let me add that when i watched the convention and those half crazed democrats in the audience kept trying to disrupt it, i was ashamed for all democrats everywhere. how embarassing, but i could understand why they were so upset. they thought they were going to ride right in and put their new stud in office.
after all, it was their turn. first bush, then clinton, then bush, they saw a pattern developing and were frustrated once before, when hillary was unexpectedly unsaddled and they had to switch horses in midstream. suddenly, the contest is far from over.
against their new dark horse, biden his time, comes a pale rider upon a palin horse. can't wait to see how this one turns out.
I think we should cut taxes and let the free market pay for our military operations. Feudal warlords each with their own agenda. Genius.
McCain took $112,000 from Charles Keating who spent five years in jail for defrauding depositors in Lincoln Savings. McCain and his family also enjoyed free trips on Keating's personal jet and spent a number of vacations at Keating's lavish home in the Bahamas. McCain's family also profitted from a shopping center venture with Keating. He was absolved of wrong doing by, you guessed it, his fellow crooks in the Senate. They said he used poor judgement! Getting caught was the "poor judgement".
Worst of all, I'm scared to death knowing that either Mayor Palin or Obama could have their fingers on the nuclear trigger.
God Bless America!
Really? According to realclearpolitics.com, which is the most centrist, inclusive site of which I'm aware, Obama leads 3-0-1 in polls that include data since Palin's speech. There have been no polls yet released from major polling organizations that are exclusively post-Palin, so it's certainly possible that the convention bump will put McCain in the lead. But it hasn't happened yet.
So please, by all means, cite "every poll you've seen." Here are mine:
Gallup Tracking 09/02 - 09/04 Obama +4
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/02 - 09/04 Obama +6
Rasmussen Tracking 09/02 - 09/04 Obama +2
CBS News 09/01 - 09/03 Tie
"The discussion on corruption is pretty amusing. When Biden was asked about whether his son or brother, both lobbyists under investigation for felonies, ever visited him in his office on business his answer was and I quote" No, In fact i never talk to lobbyists but my staff does". There is no need to say more to anyone who knows how washigton works."
Funny how this "quote" appears nowhere in a google search. It wasn't until May, after several staff members resigned (how embarrassing) that the McCain campaign instituted a policy requiring staff to either resign or cut ties with lobbying firms or outside political groups.
Neither side is lily-white when it comes to lobbyists, but the McCain side is decidedly less clean, primarily because of McCain's longer history in Washington.
"I looked into what Sarah Palin did with taxes on big oil and it shows some real creativity which is not only economically sound but good for the citizens of the state."
Really? Do tell.
"While we are at dredging up alleged sweetheart deals,how does the big raise received by Michelle Obama and promotion the hospital gave her followed by a $1m dollar earmark her husband got through the Senate for the same hospital stack up?"
Look, you clearly are more interested in rhetoric than facts (which makes your support of Palin understandable). The hospital earmark, which did not get through the Senate, occurred after Michelle Obama was promoted.
Even though Palin's claims of being anti-earmarking ring hollow based on the record, McCain's persistent campaigning against them (including several Wasilla earmarks) puts the advantage squarely in the McCain column.
"There is [sic] plenty of questionable solutions and dirt to go around. This stuff really deflects the issue and prevents real problem solving."
Then why are you spreading it?
"JFK Reagan and Bush tax cuts ALL raised TAX receipts."
Simply false. Even Bush's chief economic advisor clearly states that tax cuts do not pay for themselves (Greg Mankiw, "Principles of Economics, 1998). The 2003 Economic Report of the President makes clear that while the economy should grow in response to tax cuts, the economy is "unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."
Not satisfied? How about the 2003 Treasury report (revised 2006) titled "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills"? Here are the percentage effects on revenue of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, in the subsequent 4 years:
1981: -5.7, -12.3, -16.5, -18.6
2001: -1.7, -3.9, -4.4, -4.2
2003: -6.3, -3.4, -0.4, -0.1
Now, what happened when Clinton raised taxes?
1993: +2.0, +3.5, +3.9, +4.7
This comes from the Treasury Department under the Bush administration. How much more evidence do you need? Can you present ANYTHING that disputes the common sense view that tax cuts in our economy cause less revenue and tax increases cause higher revenue?
And she is a Wall St. candidate because "she likes eBay."
Is this a site for serious investors or a college newspaper?
"If you are really a bs detector you should do more than google it. You ought to ask the networks whether or not they have the film clip of Biden saying it."
What are you, high? I have found that Google will recover pretty much any controversial quote, because if somebody thinks it serves his or her political cause, he or she will have put it on a blog somewhere. The fact that there are ZERO hits for something you claimed was a direct quote indicates that it was not, in fact, a direct quote. If it was a direct quote, you should be able to provide information about when and where it was said. Can you?
"Secondly are you denying that Biden's relatives are under investigation?"
I wrote nothing about Biden's relatives. I think you're conflating posts. I know it's hard, but please try to keep things straight.
"Third I am absolutely correct in regard to Sarah Palin's tax policies with regard to big oil..."
And you have yet to relate anything about the subject. You said that you've done research and that you've made conclusions. Why not share the research?
"I understand the history of the Keating investigation and also that there was a thorough investigation. I will be satisfied if the Biden's relatives are investigated as thoroughly and exonerated..."
Again with things I wasn't talking about. I know it's hard. Keep it together.
"You are typical of the guy who only researches something until you find data that supports your own biases."
Actually, sir, in things political I look at crazy whack job liberal sites, crazy whack job conservative sites, and at least one centrist newspaper to try to piece together reality. Oh, geez, what was I thinking, bringing reality into the discussion.
"How about looking into why Wrangle [sic] doesn't pay his taxes, but is going to reform the tax code."
You imply that I'm one-sided, and then say something like that? Read the NY Times article (www.nytimes.com/2008/0...). Seems pretty likely to be an oversight. Anyway, your question asked why he's going to reform the tax code. How about because it's horribly complex?
"The moral question is whether her husband's sponsership [sic] of the earmark was connected."
Maybe it was. But did you see the Chicago Tribune article investigating her promotion, which found nobody with anything bad to say about her, and that her salary is in line with other VPs? Did you bother to look at Obama's list of earmarks to see how many were comparable, in that they went to hospitals or univerisities? Or did you just stop when you found something to support your own bias?
"You want to make the fact that McCain received special attention from Keating..."
Again, something I never brought up. Perhaps you're protesting too much. Is there something related to Keating I SHOULD be talking about?
"if you have a specific comprehensive energy plan that will turn this country's current account positive in 10 years let's hear it."
I don't, but then again, I never claimed to. Off the top of my head, I'd say the best way, from a market efficiency standpoint, to shake the country's dependence on oil is to tax the hell out of it, making the pursuit of other options economically viable. This is, of course, politically impossible. But why, if oil is a limited resource, wouldn't we want to use up oil from other countries now, keeping ours in the ground so that we'll have more under our control when it starts getting scarce?
But I digress. You clearly have but a little knowledge. The current account is made up of much more than just oil, and eliminating petroleum imports would not, by itself, eliminate its deficit. But who cares? Why do you think that we need to worry about bringing the current account back to balance? Don't you understand that any imbalance is temporary, and that market forces will cure it?
Just want to let you guys know that I brought up McCain's involvement with Charles Keating. My opinion is that the Senate investigation into the "Keating Five" was a whitewash. The Senate cannot investigate its own members with any credibility. Many outside organizations as well as a few senators criticized the investigations as a coverup.
Despite his denials, it's a fact that McCain intervened on behalf of Keating to convince banking regulators to stall new investment regulations for banks. Keating was eventually convicted of making fraudulent investments with Lincoln Savings' depositor's money. The depositors were mostly elderly and lost their life savings. The whole fiasco cost the taxpayer, as I recall, about one half billion dollars and the depositors $200M.
The fact that McCain received money and free trips and vacations from Keating and that his family was involved in a Keating investment is enough to tell me that McCain is NOT an honest person. McCain may claim to want to change Washington, but his past actions and behavior deny any credibility to his promises.
Like a wise man once said, "There are no degrees of honesty. One is either an honest person or one is not."
She may never be president and if she ever is, she'll have had some time in the #2 job to learn. The thought of Barack Obama having to answer the phone at 2 in the morning starting inauguration day is what should keep people up nights,
That's a lie and you know it.
Bob Bennett, the Senate Committee lead attorney in the investigation was on TV tonight talking about how he found nothing with either John Glenn or MCCain, recommended that they be dropped from the investigation. The Democrat controlled committee refused because if McCain were dropped everyone left would be Democrats and it would be seen as a Democrat scandal. So Glenn and McCain both were reprimanded for the vague "poor judgement."
.........................
I'm truly amazed someone was twisted enough to post that.
" That's a lie and you know it. "
You're going to believe Bob Bennet, the right wing's attorney's attorney?
If my comment is such a lie, what was McCain doing with the four Democratic senators in the same room with the bank regulators--playing bridge? Please tell me why was McCain at the meeting? The bottom line is that McCain took $112,000 and other perks from Keating who was a close personal friend.
This is not a partisan issue. This epitomizes what is wrong with our political system. By the way, I'm not a Democrat or Republican--never have been and never will be. I can't stand either party for what they are nor for what they stand.
However, I'd still like to know about the $112,000 that McCain received from Keating as well as the free trips on his jet and the free vacations at his Bermuda home. Oh yes, the shopping center deal needs some explanation as well.
If anyone, including Investor612, can provide some reasonable explanation for this cozy relationship with Charles Keating and why McCain and the other senators were meeting with the regulators, I am all ears.
So, to you "looking into" something means reading one op-ed piece (online.wsj.com/article...). Glad to know you're not somebody who "researches something until you find data that supports your own biases."
"...what Sarah Palin did with taxes on big oil...shows some real creativity which is not only economically sound but good for the citizens of the state."
Looks like she took the existing plan, which was to move from a revenue-sharing model to a profit-sharing model, and fixed a problem with it by basically putting a revenue floor in. Basically, she continued the process of change begun by the previous administrations. Do I like it? Generally, though there is of course the chance that higher taxes on oil producers will lead to less production.
As for the "good for the citizens of the state," welcome to the closest thing we have to socialism in America.
Current account: "...1] balance of trade and 2] net proceeds of...capital...Both of these terms have been going negative at an increasing rate."
Still waiting for you to say WHY you think this is "alarming."
"The first term is about 700billion/yr and equates roughly to the12.2 m/barrels of foreign oil/day@ $140 per barrel we import."
In a word: fudge. First, the objective number - over the last year, we've imported about 13.21 bbls/day, down from about 13.49 in the prior period. Now, the subjective number - using $140/bbl is very... convenient, and very incorrect. You've chosen a number which the price of oil was close to only for a two-week period against a trade balance number for a whole year. Try taking the mean crude price for the balance of trade period you want to talk about. Eyeballing it, looks like about $105. Do the math, you get about $517M.
"In general this negative current account yearly balance is quickly appraoching a trillion dollars/ year and is in reality a negative cash flow that, I believe is endangering this country's future."
This post is too long to continue. You're welcome to try to explain why you think the current account deficit is such a problem, but you'll be wrong.
How, exactly? Apparently, you were sure enough about what was said that you quoted it, but you don't know where you heard it. Next time, you might want to paraphrase it. Just a thought. But the burden is still on you to cite a source. Not that it matters.
"If you don't think a trillion dollar negative current account is bad for the country, then why don't you give me your reasons?"
Come on, Old Man, you're the one saying the sky is falling. If you can't back up your statements, just admit it.
"I used the 140 number because so many of the people who write on the subject say that we are at peak oil and expect the price to go up in the next year."
But you used a trade deficit from the past. You don't see the problem with that, do you? Let me explain. Let's use the same timeframe, shall we? For the year ending in May, the trade deficit was $695M (bea.gov/international/...). For that same period, we imported 4.23 billion barrels of petroleum products (www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/im...). During this period, the average price of a barrel of crude was $91.4 (tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...). Multiplying out, we get an estimated trade impact of $386M, or 56% of the overall trade deficit. So, as I said, there's much more to the trade deficit than oil.
"Are you in the camp that reducing our balance of payments by 500b+ will not significantly impact this country's economic and security welfare?"
Until you provide any argument to that effect, let's say yes - I'm unwilling to assume that something is bad until presented some evidence. You really don't know, do you?
Why do you think that you should be granted credibility? If I told you that [insert politician's name] once had a torrid affair with [inset other politician's name]'s spouse, but would provide no evidence to back up my assertion, would you believe it? I guess you might. But for normal people, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.
"Secondly..."
Uh, you already had a "second..."
"...I don't know where you get the number of barrels of oil we imported /day we impor.[sic]"
I gave you a link above.
"First you correct my 12.2 m/ day number, then you quote the yearly gov number, whic sustantiates the app. 12.2 no."
Actually, it's worse than that. The first number was significantly over yours, the second is closer, but on the lower side. Can't tell you where the first one came from, but I agree I put out two very different numbers and frankly I don't care enough right now to track down the error.
"Of course there are other factors in the balance of trade nos, but the importation of oil is the single largest term in the equation."
Your argument was that we would very nearly ELIMINATE the trade deficit by eliminating petroleum imports. I demonstrated that you were very much off-base.
"I guess you don't see the connection between foreign bad actors and unstable gov. owning more of our country, lending us more and more money and the ability of these countries to turn off the money and energy tap and thus cripple us as neither an economic or strategic threat to our well being."
Money first. Do you have any idea how much of our debt is held by any foreign government? Here's a list: www.treas.gov/tic/mfh..... Note, Japan's first, China's second. China has about half a trillion dollars of our debt - or about 6% of the debt held by the public. Do you REALLY think that China could hold us hostage over this? And do you REALLY think that China would want to put that investment at risk?
"Do you think that several bad actors could not cause a spike in the price of oil that would cause us to go into an inflation spiral?"
No. The only organization that has anything approaching such power is OPEC. It's highly unlikely that OPEC could ever be unified enough to do it. And how exactly would it work? Once a tanker leaves the straights of hormuz, exactly how much influence do you think any OPEC country has over where it goes? None. So to cut us off, they'd have to cut EVERYBODY off. Do you really think the OPEC nations would all abide by such an agreement, if it ever happened? Listen to the recent rhetoric - they were practically begging for production discipline in their last remarks, and that's with oil at just $100.
"What if several of the countries in the mid-east decided not to make investments in our financial institutions with their oil surplus money..."
Yawn. Then the market would move through this consolidation more quickly.
"...or decided to create their own stock exchange as is happening today in Dubai and slowly siphon income and financial activity from us."
This is relevant to the current account... not at all. And exactly what do you expect us to "do" about it?
"There are many scenarios that are possible that would slowly affect our standard of living in a downward direction."
What an interesting platitude. Unfortunately, you haven't presented any.
I'm one of the few Americans who are not total dip sh!ts, which is like maybe 5% of this country. I'd love to work a trade and export all the religious freaks out and would even take 2 to 1 in terms of illegal aliens.
In addition to implying equitable distribution of resources and opportunity, the expression can also be used to approximate another expression: what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine. Our party is famous for using double entendres to gain support for undeliverable promises disguised as policy/ political possibility.
I want to believe McCain is capable of delivering change, however listening to his words, and analyzing his body language tells me something different that what he seems to want me to believe. Rather than showing his respect for his presumably wise choice of Governor Palin by symbolically partnering in a handshake with here, he embraced her. Unconscious, subconscious or conscious, I see McCain as having started out on the wrong foot. Public perception of this political faux-pas, was just not present - or at least not very vocal. A hand shake would do, and the whole kiss on the cheek/ hug was too familiar I think, for someone McCain had met only once before - regardless of the context in which that meeting took place. Yes, John McCain is married to a woman who started out with a substantial silver spoon in her mouth, and yet is an accomplished businesswoman in her own right. He also left his wife of many years after having courted the future Mrs. McCain's attention, and applied for a marriage license while still with his first wife. Where do duty to country and duty to his first wife fit in with his solid 'character.' Country first implies a sense of honor and duty not shown as often as his sense of commitment to his own interests as well as a dogged search for greener opportunities - even on the other side of the aisle.
I don't see McCain hugging or kissing Joe Lieberman, even though they have met on multiple occasions and have done much more for each other, politically speaking. In some instances, Independents are the new Federalists, masking an even more extreme brand of Republican theology attractive by making conservative ideology seem too liberal, or even lacking bite. It's the old bait and switch. Many extreme conservatives are serving as surrogates for the extremely dysfunctional arm of my party. By coming out against both major parties, establishing themselves as experts, then endorsing (usually) the party they switched from in the first place. It's akin to distracting or stunning game in the wild- just long enough to leverage your kill-shot.
By the time the intended target is able to process the ruse, and realizes that they were the original target, the red dot has already done its job.
Lou Dobbs, CNN's 'independent' host and defender of the American middle class, got many Dems, and Pubbies, and actual Independents on his side by echoing the sentiments and stating the facts regarding the War on the Middle Class. In that sense, he did something positive if he got people who otherwise were not aware of this reality, and heard it as first-time thinkers, aka listeners, and thought it was amazing that this guy Dobbs was defending him.
What I see as being truly noteworthy though, is that in the week following the Republican Convention - which I am sorry to say that I am happy I missed attending - Mr. Dobbs attacked the press as being liberal in their treatment of Obama vs their treatment of McCain. Lou Dobbs had the gall to say this without highlighting that McCain has neither the track record, nor the character, nor the intelligence, nor the repect for the world's true mavericks and true heroes that I want to see in my President.
To say McCain is stuck in old politics would be disingenuous and unrealistic - not to mention wreckless. What worked for the politicians of yesteryear worked not because of any magic, or even an unsophisticated populace. I know more than a few MBAs who could care less about Darfur or Georgia, and cared even less about Serbia or Rwanda. It is not about foreign policy/ experience/ MBAs or PhDs or even Navy Crosses. "Country first" does not show me that your ambitions or future ambitions - in the guise of courting and obtaining popular support - take a back seat to your country's well-being. Not as much as service to your community in place of taking the path that leads you to one day being the head of Lehman Bros and part of our country's decline.
My glasses are neither flowery or rose-colored, nor are they tinted with the brand of "negativism" or (more accurately) cynicism or pessimism. Spare the rod and spoil the child - when the child spoiled, and clueless in terms of responsibility to family, community, country and world has a tantrum or goes on a violent rampage, correction is needed. Neither the death penalty nor a slap on the wrist are merited or justified, but a fair and logical medium exists and begs for implementation.
As our nations faces questions and consequences born of our answers and decisions based on those answers, I feel and firmly believe that we cannot afford someone that will ask the wrong questions so that we don't feel threatened. The last time my party supported a candidate who allowed us to become complacent and to not feel threatened when really we should have taken action to guard against the threat - was 8 years ago.
Lock-step party politics is dangerous for the reason I stated above- never having to admit you are wrong; as well as for this more dangerous possibility and reason: never having to think. It takes more work to think, and brings us out of our comfort zone/ daily routine of rote execution of easily automated tasks. Do you want NOT to be ABLE to demand affordable health care? Some things are best left to proactivity rather than chance. Like health care, the environment, etc.
It's like being wrong about the existence of God. Who cares? The good things - morality, caring for God's Creation by respecting the rest of it, ie, class-warfare, gender and racial diversity, eco-diversity and a god-like sense of responsibility to steward and act as guardians over the environment over which we were given dominion. Any departure from these very basic principles walks the line between disrespectful and arrogant in the secular world and blasphemous in the realm of God.
To misuse your God-given intellect and allow yourself to be fleeced is just as irresponsible, self-serving and blasphemous. I am not an extremist, nor a "whatever" kind of person. I do however like to introduce, explore and follow through ideas to one or more logical conclusions.
Then again, even if Wall Street were recently proven to be good for America, I guess it MIGHT be okay that Sarah Palin might be good for Wall Street. Depends on if you are really there, working on and working on reforming Wall Street, or just want your undeserved $45k investment banker bonuses like before the sub-prime bust. Meanwhile, the rest of America continues to struggle to pay its energy costs and medical bills. Then again, that could be just my opinion...or a simple truth.
You say Palin is Wall Street's candidate, but more recently say Obama is ahead because of super-rich market manipulators tanking the economy to get him elected.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
So does the Street love Palin or is it Obama.