Seeking Alpha

Wall Street's curmudgeon-in-chief, Third Point's Dan Loeb, pens a letter critical of the...

Wall Street's curmudgeon-in-chief, Third Point's Dan Loeb, pens a letter critical of the President. A former Obama supporter, Loeb is turned off by the President's "smack downs" on successful Americans, otherwise "known as the 2%." His holiday gift for Obama's true believers: "He's Just Not That Into You."
Comments (102)
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2707) | Send Message
     
    I thought Bill Clinton was running the country now. He had a great press conference in the White House just two days ago . . .
    12 Dec 2010, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    The angry people want to punish the successful people. Welcome to hope and change. I guess as long as they have a new kitchen paid for by the government it'll be ok, no matter the long term consequences.

     

    The part that I don't get is where will the money come from when the successful people are destroyed or forced out. When there is no more money what are you going to think when we have to start a war because we'll need the booty to stop the riots.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2707) | Send Message
     
    It's surprising to me you've gotten 5 thumbs down (so far) on your comment which, to me, was spot on. I have given you a thumbs up.

     

    SeekingAlpha seems to have suddenly morphed from capitalist to socialist? How can someone not come to the same conclusion as you have above? Do all people have the same problems reading a road map?
    12 Dec 2010, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3985) | Send Message
     
    What part of the financial industry defrauding and destroying the wealth of the nation is confusing to you?

     

    The thumbs down are not about "successful" versus "poor" this is about the buddy-buddy relationship between politics and a very, very, very small minority of the country getting in bed together to destroy the middle class.

     

    I propose that as an investment oriented website you should be more aware of the fact that we come here cause we all want to make money, but when confronted with the BS that's has masqueraded as politics, the financial system, the economy, and the ways these things have played out in recent years, there is going to be some measure of righteous fury.

     

    Your effort to define fellow SA members as "socialist" because of thumbs down lacks quite a bit of credibility.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2707) | Send Message
     
    I see there are people who cannot read a road map.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • wkl
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Neil459,
    See Margaret Thatcher. "The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."
    12 Dec 2010, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    spald_fr, Unfortunately when you have to struggle you have to be practical. That is what is hitting Europe these days and is forcing their change from socialist to conservative policies.

     

    In America we still have so many people that have it so good, they can afford to believe in the socialist theory. It makes then feel good while they drive around in new cars and listen to their iPods.

     

    The time will come when they either run out of other people's money or grow up.
    12 Dec 2010, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    "The successful people"? Like Bernie Madoff? Like the creep at Countrywide Credit? Anyone who makes money is 'successful'; but a lot of those success stories are rich because they break the law, because they are sophisticated thieves -- or just brutal thieves. The drug cartel is rich. The oil cartel is rich. The bank cartel is rich. They are not a lot different, in fact.

     

    It's quite a dilemma we have, isn't it?

     

    It's pretty easy to be a successful banker when the money you're playing with is not your own; and if you lose it you just get it back, taken out of the tax money contributed by those who actually work for a living.

     

    If we have to be poor as a nation because we get rid of the thieves who are 'the risk-takers', the 'success stories', then so be it. Hard work can make you rich, just as theft can -- but the hard work path tastes better in the morning.
    12 Dec 2010, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    The problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of money to steal.
    12 Dec 2010, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, KMI. The anger is being directed by American citizens who trusted their own government and their business leaders -- and who realize they have been duped again.

     

    Let them eat cake, right?
    12 Dec 2010, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Gary A
    , contributor
    Comments (3156) | Send Message
     
    You do realize that banksters that went insolvent in the 14th century were hanged. Mainstreet does not likely recommend hanging, just jail.

     

    Successful ponzi schemers are hardly what I would call successful. They may have a lot of money but they have sold their souls to the devil and there will be hell to pay.
    12 Dec 2010, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1824) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely, Gary A.

     

    Example: Mark Madoff's suicide. I feel bad for Mark Madoff's wife, son, mother. I do not feel bad for Mark Madoff's father.
    12 Dec 2010, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1824) | Send Message
     
    Neil459, it is not the angry people wanting to punish the successful people.

     

    It's the victims wanting to punish the perpetrators.

     

    Also, beyond the retribution, we've been robbed and we want our stuff back.
    12 Dec 2010, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    No economy actually has captialism deployed to its core. America is not a capitalistic country, nor is Great Britain, Japan, Germany etc. They have various forms of socialism.

     

    Government and special interest groups on all sides constantly interfer and the consequences of such interference causes the biggest problems. Just like in sports, the government should enforce fair and blind rules, not interfere in the game when their team is losing and they want to change the outcome.

     

    Take for example the free trade agreements with South Korea. I was watching the CEO of Ford Motor Company on television the other night and he stated that Hyundai had sold over 1 million vehicles in North America while American manufacturers had sold only 10,000 vehicles (don't know year he was refering to but it is not important). He implied that the free trade agreement was unfair in that it opened up the market for the Koreans but still protected South Korea from imports. Now, I believe in Free trade - a tenat of capitalism, but obviously, this trade agreement is a farce that was designed to protect various interests and parties to the agreement. It is not that there is something inherently wrong with free trade, it is that this agreement is terrible to the core and is not in-line with true free trade principles.
    12 Dec 2010, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    Peggy Joseph - 'I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage, you know, if I help him, he is going to help me'

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...

     

    We could solve this dilemma by only allowing people who earn money to vote. If you are on social assistance or don't pay taxes etc., you don't get a chance to vote. If you have been unemployed for more than 1 year, you don't get to vote etc. Obviously, some fine-tuning would need to be in place, but the basic principle of those that pay for things get to decide how the money is spent makes alot of sense. It would change alot of people's behaviour and activity, or it would exclude them from the decision making process. The absurdity of allowing a women like Peggy Joseph to equally decide an election is absurd to the nth degree.
    12 Dec 2010, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    I am starting to get very tired of the hyperbole

     

    Raising the highest marginal tax rates 3% is not "destroying" anyone whether or not you think it is correct

     

    It is getting hard to take people seriously
    12 Dec 2010, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    There are many more taxes than just income taxes. Secondly, no matter how much money the government brings in, they will, over the long-run, continue to run deficits, so the notion that taxes have to be raised in order to balance the budget or pay down the debt is a farce. Thirdly, if half of all americans don't pay any taxes at all, why doesn't the government tax them considering they use many services yet don't pay for them?
    12 Dec 2010, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > why doesn't the government tax them considering they use many
    > services yet don't pay for them?

     

    The notion, which I'm sure you disagree with, is that they can't afford to both pay taxes and maintain what this country has decided is a decent standard of living.

     

    I'm sure some might like the poor to give up half their meager incomes and live in caves and huts to make ends meet, all so that the rich can pay less taxes...but I guess we'd have to put that to a vote.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:41 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > no matter how much money the government brings in, they will,
    > over the long-run, continue to run deficits

     

    That is a purely speculative statement.

     

    We had a surplus in the 90s, for example. Had we continued on that track, the debt might have gone down.

     

    There are only two ways to reduce the debt -- raise taxes and reduce spending. Personally, I don't think any meaningful progress can be made unless we do both.

     

    And we can do both, but the voters must commit to it. And the politicians, along with their owners, the corporations, must also commit to it.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (736) | Send Message
     
    I tend to think that people who always whine about how all the successful people cheated their way through life are generally venting frustration that they haven't been able to achieve the same level of success.

     

    For the most part I think successful people really do work harder and smarter and that is why they are successful. Also, personally I find that it is best to focus on achieving my own success rather than wasting all my energy complaining about how others have unfairly gained theirs.

     

    I say let them cheat and swindle, they won't stop me from achieving my goals.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • a fat panda
    , contributor
    Comments (806) | Send Message
     
    I can explain one of the TDs. When he talks about successful people he fails to say at what they are successful. At present the true gift of Wall St and it only success in the last 10 years is the ability to get Washington to give them money. They have done it better than virtually every other industry put together. It has been so successful that companies have wanted to become banks just so that they could join the other pigs at the feeding trough.

     

    There is no capitalism on Wall St anymore. In any capitalistic socieity, they would have been bankrupted, and left without bus fare at a soup kitchen. They made terrible choices, and expect me the taxpayer to not only clean-up the mess, but listen to them whine about their bonuses while they use my money to clean-up their mess.

     

    People want to say that there were good apples and bad apples in the bunch. I don't see it that way. The survivors want to be called geniuses, yet they are the ones who accepted AIG as the counterparty on tens of billions of dollars. JPM was one of the largest counterparties to Bear Sterns - and then had the audacity to ask the US Taxpayer help them takeover the company. The survivors weren't all that bright, they were at best just the thin kid at fat camp.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > For the most part I think successful people really do work harder
    > and smarter and that is why they are successful

     

    For a good read, check out Outliers by Gladwell.

     

    It does a thorough job of debunking the notion that all successful people are just smarter and harder working than everyone else. The punchline being that even if everyone is actually playing fair, there are still lots of equally smart and hard working people who just never caught the breaks that the "successful" people did.

     

    Gladwell, sadly, doesn't cover the concept of the successful gaming the system to become more successful.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (736) | Send Message
     
    Smells like more excuses......

     

    Again, I don't focus on other people's success. I focus on what I CAN DO each day to improve.
    12 Dec 2010, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Let them cheat and swindle, as long as I don't miss my chance....? Interesting. Then why do we have laws? We should get rid of laws. Let them kill and maim, as long as I don't miss my chance....

     

    I like to point out the opposite extreme -- those cheating for success -- when people begin bragging about how successful they are, including themselves in the 'successful club'. Does success mean the money you have? Is that how we measure success? What about the rest of life? Do they have a happy family? How many marriages? How much alcoholism or drug use? Are their children in jail? How much damage to other people did they inflict in order to get their money?

     

    Success is actually a pretty difficult thing to define, unless you limit it to money. Many people who are rich have pretty empty personal lives without allegiance to anything but their money. Are they successful?
    13 Dec 2010, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (736) | Send Message
     
    Well admittedly I am a Libertarian so I have no problem repealing most laws. The government is there to protect our basic rights, not guarantee us a paycheck.

     

    Also, I think success goes beyond money, it is about whether or not you are an innovator, someone who creates value for society. This is the kind of success I am after and money is just a tool to get me there. I agree there are plenty of rich people who really bring nothing to the table, but I am not in favor of regulating their wealth, after all it is a free country.
    13 Dec 2010, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    From the Libertarian point of view, should the government guarantee our bank deposits, money market funds, or the Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae paper that now makes up large percentages of pension and endowment portfolios; or is that too much government?
    13 Dec 2010, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3985) | Send Message
     
    Being Lib doesn't mean you are ready to walk away wholesale from what's out there and looking to replace it with something totally new, but it does mean having your opinion informed from a certain perspective, the perspective that gov't should only enable and intervene as much as needed in order to provide a fair and level playing field with minimal involvement.

     

    For example, a suggestion that FDIC bank insurance is at odds with Lib perspective in that it is gov't provided is problematic in that deposit insurance has come about as a result of the fact that current bank regulation enables banks to take risks. Before you can take a stance on FDIC insurance you need to see where the weaknesses in the system are and determine how to address them.

     

    Of course this is my own perspective and I can only speak for myself, and I don't want to get into a discussion of political theory here, but I like and share bigbenorr's perspective so i figured I'd pop in here.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    I think we can reconsider the hanging solution. We can reconsider it.
    13 Dec 2010, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Are there any practical applications in the real world of Libertarianism? How will I know one if I see it? If I were looking to inform my perspective from a Libertarian source, where would you suggest I look? Who or waht do you consider a reference for authoritative Libertarian dogma?
    13 Dec 2010, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (736) | Send Message
     
    We all just kinda make it up as we go
    14 Dec 2010, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Well as long as its a work in progress, than maybe the proponents would consider a suggestion. How about a less idealistic more pragmatic approach to solving problems. Keep in mind, even the stars are a balance between gravitational collapse and nuclear bomb. No structure can form in an overheated universe, and nothing can live in a universe that's too cold. Moderation, balance, Ying and Yang would make your philosopy more acceptable to more people, ie.e, assuming your philosopy is actually intended as a guide to real life social structure.
    15 Dec 2010, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    So... every person that gets rich, has sold their souls....LOL!
    15 Dec 2010, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    *A former Obama supporter, Loeb is turned off by the President's "smack downs"*

     

    They have become a kind of twisted Vince McMahon World Wrestling form of ranting, albeit with a little hip hop thrown in 'for the kids'.

     

    This strange maoist hybrid between Flava Flav and the Iron Sheik antics certainly is not lost on most Americans who view it as little more than a grandstanding attempt at scoring attaboys from the Huffpo screechers & the MoveOn zombies in their WTO protesting orange hoodies, sponsored by iGear.

     

    The problem is that it has become more than just late 18th century vaudeville. It is now destroying the economy. Capital is purposely not being deployed. Hiring is not occurring. And the yield curve is such that banks are not motivated to lend.

     

    Even adults will not buy a ticket to the haunted house anymore. They are beginning to believe it is real.
    12 Dec 2010, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    "Dan Loeb...A former Obama supporter..."

     

    Another rube self-identifies. Nice of Mr. Loeb to figure things out *after* helping get this train wreck elected.
    12 Dec 2010, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    The 'train wreck' occurred under the Great Republican George Bush's watch -- except George wasn't watching. Obama has made it worse, by following Geithner and Bernanke, two other Bush Republicans.

     

    The party is over. When you turn out the lights, the rich and the poor are the same.
    12 Dec 2010, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    I'm curious Michael...how long, exactly, do pathetic Dems/Libs get to use Bush for an excuse for all their own screw-ups? 20 years? 30? Just wondering how long Obama would have to be president before he gets to take credit for his own suckage.

     

    "It's all Bush's fault," has to be the single more pathetic "argument" used on this web site. But then, when you've got zero else to say, I guess it's the best you can do. And, by the way, how bad Bush sucked on this and related issues doesn't do a solitary thing to make Obama look better. It just gives his defenders a rather pathetic excuse to use in his defense.
    12 Dec 2010, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (981) | Send Message
     
    > I'm curious Michael...how long, exactly, do pathetic Dems/Libs get to use Bush for an excuse for all their own screw-ups? 20 years? 30? Just wondering how long Obama would have to be president before he gets to take credit for his own suckage.

     

    Forever. Bush was beyond pale. Two wars, financial crisis, budget deficit are all his achievements. Bad enoguh it was elected once, but when he was reelected for the second term the rest of the world stood with its mougth agape and all agreed that they didn't understand americans.
    Obama has no clue about economics and so he is floundering around, but he cannot be worse than Bush no matter what he does.
    12 Dec 2010, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    It wasn't Bush's fault alone. In terms of spending, it was also the Republican controlled Congress during his administration that ran rampant, producing the spending bills that Bush merely rubber-stamped signed.

     

    =======
    As of December 2008, President George W. Bush had vetoed only 12 bills since taking office in January 2001.

     

    Only ONE Presidential veto occurred before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. This is the fewest Presidential vetoes of any modern President; in March 2006 Bush set a 200-year veto record.

     

    Source: US Senate. [uspolitics.about.com/o...]
    =====
    12 Dec 2010, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    The mere fact that Obama has attempted to control the health care system much like it is done in Canada and Great Britain qualifies him to be as bad as Bush (I don't share your opinion of Bush, but in arguing your point I made that reference).

     

    In Canada, we do have death panels as Sarah Palin has mentioned in her criticism of public health care. In my country, the government designates health care spending before the health care is needed/demanded by the public and then patients are put on waiting lists for the care. Now, do you really believe that patients don't die before 'their turn' has come for service? Do you think that the doctors have a crystal ball and can determine exactly when to treat each patient so that not one is lost because of a lack of service? Of course patients die while in a system that refuses them immediate care and also refuses to allow them to seek an alternative in their own country - that's a death panel in every sense of the word.

     

    The Canadian government decides how much money goes to what ailments and treatments, which treatments are allowed and which ones are not to be covered etc. The government will allow those on disability to jump the line and get treatment faster, while those still tyring to hold onto their jobs have to wait. If you are a relative of a family member who works at a hospital, you don't have to wait. If you are a police officer or fireman, you will get treated more quickly. If you are in prison and ill, you will be seen very quickly. But if you are an average joe, who doesn't fall into one of these categories and you try to do your best to live your life as normally as possible, the wait from family doctor to specialist to diagnostic access to assessment to surgery etc. is often over a year. And that's if everything goes as planned. If things don't get diagnosed properly or you want a second opinion - good luck to you, because you will have to go through all the crap that you initially underwent once again.

     

    And the real kicker is that the politicians in Canada - Danny Williams and Belinda Stronach for example, fly to the U.S. to get immediate treatment while at the same time blocking any attempt by legislators that are interested in private healthcare to bring competition to Canadians who are suffering.
    12 Dec 2010, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Yes a big part of problem with Medicare is we don't have death panels of our own

     

    Talk about the contradictions in this country
    12 Dec 2010, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Who's idea was the new drug benefit?
    12 Dec 2010, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Forever. Bush was beyond pale. Two wars, financial crisis, budget deficit are all his achievements. Bad enoguh it was elected once, but when he was reelected for the second term the rest of the world stood with its mougth agape and all agreed that they didn't understand americans.
    Obama has no clue about economics and so he is floundering around, but he cannot be worse than Bush no matter what he does. "

     

    May this be inscribed on the forehead of every turbo-lib from now till their soup kitchen future.
    12 Dec 2010, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    You will eventually have death panels in your country if you adopt a Canadian or British system.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > Danny Williams and Belinda Stronach for example, fly to the U.S. to
    > get immediate treatment while at the same time blocking any
    > attempt by legislators that are interested in private healthcare

     

    No one disputes that private health care is the best...if you have money.

     

    Also, why are you griping about U.S. health care if you're Canadian??? Sheesh.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    I voted for George Bush and generally liked him. He was human; not especially bright; but he seemed real and fairly decent, considering the crowd he was moving in.

     

    It's impossible not to blame his administration and Clinton's -- and in fact the whole Republican era of 'let Business police Business' that began with Ronald Reagan -- I voted for Reagan also -- so I'm not really a liberal or a democrat -- for the collapse through insatiable greed that threw the global economy over the cliff.

     

    The bank bailout started with George W. His men -- Paulson, Bernanke, Greenspan before him -- all played a hand in the greatest robbery in the history of the world.

     

    He left Obama with a train wreck -- and so, now, to blame Obama, seems to want me to ask: how long do the Republicans/Conservatives get to insinuate that the global collapse was really Obama and the Dems fault -- rather than look themselves in the eye and wonder if their free-Business creed was not all it appeared to be.

     

    Warren Buffet called Wall Street's new mortgage bonds (and insurance and re-insurance of the same) 'financial weapons of mass destruction'. Wall Street set off dirty bombs all over the world. To pretend that the cause of all this was Obama or too much social security is an indication that ideology is almost always stronger than reason, blindness almost always more preferred than unfortunate, tarnishing information.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Death panels. How many Americans die each year because they can't afford medical treatment or have no insurance? How many Americans go bankrupt each year because the health-care bubble has boxed them out of the financial game?

     

    Better to have our neighbors die quietly, without medical treatment, than to every try to make a better medical system in America. Keep doctors and insurance executives rich -- rather than to try to have a rational health system that treats the sick without driving them into bankruptcy.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "How many Americans die each year because they can't afford medical treatment or have no insurance? How many Americans go bankrupt each year because the health-care bubble has boxed them out of the financial game?"

     

    I dunno. Probably not very many.

     

    It was a very emotionally charged try though. Too bad it didn't convince me. I know, I'm really mean and stuff. Awww.
    13 Dec 2010, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12844) | Send Message
     
    MC:

     

    Hey, you know, what? There's absolutely nothing preventing you from taking your life savings and putting it Sunday's offering plate (if you go to church; it's even tax deductible) or mailing it in, as a donation to Uncle Sam. That's the beauty of freedom.

     

    Taking other's wealth by Government force to redistribute to somebody else's idea of the "more worthy" or "deserving" is merely theft in the promotion of somebody else's socialist/communist ideals. Forget how many people die from lack of medical care, many millions more have died trying to escape the yolk of regimes that enforced that kind of thinking.
    13 Dec 2010, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Exactly,.... "They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being..." The Honorable Ronald Reagan.
    13 Dec 2010, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    You don't like the government stealing, but yet you seem quite comfortable with the people who have money, despite the fact that many of the rich got that way by STEALING, FLIMFLAM & TRICKERY.

     

    It's OK for the strong to steal from the weak and/or uninformed but not for the government to do so. :)
    13 Dec 2010, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    Reagan wasn't honorable. He was just a "B" level actor who happened to luck into the presidency with strong rhetoric and a good campaign manager.
    13 Dec 2010, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    The government authorized these lending practices through the market leader of FHA(ie Freddie) lowering its standards via CRA, which was a politically motivated buy-a-vote ponzi.

     

    The 'stealing, flimflam & trickery' began in Congress.

     

    Why are 97% of all mortgages SOEs? Why is the federal government involved in home lending? Why was CRA pushed, promoted and hyped in the halls of Congress? Why was ZIRP allowed to perpetuate the myth?

     

    This wasn't the banks fault. This was the United States of America's federal gangster government's fault. I can't blame the banks. They did what they had to do or go out of business. As a bank you couldn't have competed with the other banks gaming off ninjas. You would have gone out of business. There was too much money to be made and if you didn't play, you would have lost. Many did lose. Either way, the losses would come. Its just that the government, again, returned to bail out the biggest gamers as the lower level players got wiped out.

     

    The government started the ball rolling and kept pushing it from behind with a stick.

     

    Learn to put blame where it belongs. Otherwise you're just another cheap Barney Frank cliche, the one he hopes you'll continue to use so he won't spend time in Supermax.
    13 Dec 2010, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    He was a B level actor. That's pretty good compared to the Ds and Fs like Boxer, Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

     

    Just goes to show how gullible the left is. They'll believe any carnie barker apparently.
    13 Dec 2010, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    In Canada, the public versus private debate is often discussed as woes to our public system are many. So, many Canadians have alot to say about how medical systems operate in other countries.

     

    If the U.S. goes to a public style health care system like Canada's, I won't be able to travel to the U.S. to get treatment.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    I have been to the U.S. 4 times in the past 18 months for private treatment. Therefore, I really care what happens to your system.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    It shows just how dishonest some of the members of Seeking Alpha are when I get a negative 2 rating for just stating a fact that I travel to the U.S. for healthcare and therefore what happens to the American system matters to me because I use it.
    14 Dec 2010, 06:45 AM Reply Like
  • njefferson78
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Positivethougths,

     

    I, for one, gave you a thumbs down because the comment is off-topic and does not meaningfully add to the discussion of the topic of the article.

     

    This is one factor that may make people consider a comment "poor", as the button says. It is not a popularity contest.

     

    Your comment complaining about "dishonesty" is similarly poor (and clearly wrong)...as is my comment responding to it. Such is life.
    14 Dec 2010, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Bush was definitely seminal. I don't know whether he is the defining symptom of a systemic cancer or he was the cancer. Only time will tell. If he was the cancer, we need to get rid of all traces of his "administration". If he was just a symptom, well all good things come to an end. In Egyptology we find cases where the Egyptians have obvioulsy tried to erase some persons from history, perhaps because of embarresment. Maybe future historians will wonder why there is no record of a 43rd President of the United States.
    14 Dec 2010, 07:58 AM Reply Like
  • Bozerdog
    , contributor
    Comments (464) | Send Message
     
    The dow was around 8000 when the grand ole party handed the mess to obama and his admin. It's at 11,000 now... Guy is just bad for biz.
    12 Dec 2010, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You mean thanks to ZIRP, right?

     

    DOW whatever does not = jobs growth.

     

    Nice try.
    12 Dec 2010, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    This guy's criticism is hallow to its core. Obama hasn't changed since he first starting campaigning, to his election, to the present period now two years into office. So, anyone who claims that they supported him before but now no longer do because of a supposed shift in policy is either stupid or disingenuos.

     

    Obama said he wanted to redistribute the wealth, he said he wanted to end 'tax cuts for the wealthy', he said he believed in social justice etc., so it's not as if people who supported him or voted for him didn't know what they were getting.
    12 Dec 2010, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    "Obama said he wanted to redistribute the wealth, he said he wanted to end 'tax cuts for the wealthy', he said he believed in social justice etc., so it's not as if people who supported him or voted for him didn't know what they were getting. "
    =======
    And that is what we who voted for Obama expected to get! But his promises turned out to be mere campaign rhetoric. We thought that a black president would have a connection to the problems of the common man, but Instead, Obama reneged and did the opposite, kowtowing to the rich and wealthy. Obama has proven to be the most successful weapon the Republicans ever deployed against the middle class & USA! He has turned out to be the Manchurian Candidate.

     

    I sometimes wonder if the people pulling the strings purposefully forced McCain to select Sarah Palin as VP, knowing she would cost the Republicans votes and thus help ensure that Obama won, thus getting their man in place?
    12 Dec 2010, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    He has tried to do almost everything he said, he just hasn't been able to convince his democratic friends on his side of the aisle. If you are upset with the outcome of his presidency so far, you should place the blame on the democrats that rode his coattailes into office but turned against his agenda once there.

     

    And you should be generally happy in that Obama made a serious attempt to control health care. Once you control health care, you will control alot of the people's behaviour.
    12 Dec 2010, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "We thought that a black president would have a connection to the problems of the common man..."

     

    ROFMALO!
    12 Dec 2010, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    I voted for Obama. I thought he was going to prune Wall Street giants back to the earth -- be a new Teddy Roosevelt -- and inaugurate a new age of American civilization that was more than mere materialistic 'I get mine, to hell with you' morality.

     

    I did not expect him to sign up with Wall Street -- and already to have worked out a job with Goldman Sachs after he retires from Washington.

     

    Disappointed? Yes.

     

    But I don't blame him for the financial holocaust he inherited -- I blame him for not seeing more clearly and getting rid of Bernanke and Geither and prosecuting Wall Street to the hilt. Tax cuts? We need higher taxes, lower spending, and we need to pay off our debts. The Republicans pushing for more tax cuts -- what is this: they want the free ride to continue for ever?
    13 Dec 2010, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "I voted for Obama."

     

    Enough said.

     

    Next.
    13 Dec 2010, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    To quote the sage Yoda:

     

    "Do, or do not. There is no try."
    13 Dec 2010, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3143) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, the entire Washington DC crowd just isn't into the common ordinary American. The public unions, the politicians, and the financial elite have joined at the hip to perpetuate their own interests and create wealth for themselves at the expense of all other Americans - both current and future.

     

    I'm conservative and have no issues with people EARNING whatever they can - including large amounts of wealth. BUT we have an entire crowd that hasn't earned anything - they've stolen it from us and our children and grandchildren. What happened before and during the financial crisis is called fraud..... and fraud is a criminal offense that deserves prosecution. That is Obama's greatest failure - he abandoned the rule of law because a bunch of rich people told him it was in the interest of the country to move forward...... you'd think a law professor would be smart enough to know better.....
    12 Dec 2010, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Hhmmm....the below comment of mine was posted this morning and deleted by the SA admins. Not my best work, perhaps, but certainly not worthy of deletion.

     

    This is becoming a more extreme right-wing site every day -- did they get bought by News Corp or something?

     

    -

     

    For convenience, here's the intro, with a few factual corrections

     

    Dear Friends/battered wives:

     

    It is that time of year and I just thought of the perfect gift in light of some of you. In case the financial industry's hostage rant wasn’t enough to turn you off, I thought I’d buy any of you a great book for gals who just keep on pursuing the wrong guy. Made popular on Oprah a few years back, “He’s Just Not That Into You” seems like the perfect holiday stocking stuffer for true middle class Americans who just can’t get enough of our financial industry's smack downs on hard working Americans known as “the 98%”

     

    I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the financial industry will become more fair and sustainable and that all their tough talk is just words; I mean they really love us and when they rob us, they don't mean it; they just gets a little greedy….I mean when we are alone with them — paying exorbitant fees for them to short the products they're selling us and our retirement funds — they're really nice and we get invited to shareholder's meetings! It was so cool, because we could tell all our friends…and when they give speeches at congressional hearing, I mean we get to watch them on TV…..and they usually don't hit us in the face so it doesn’t show, except for that one time (well, a couple of times if you go back far enough)…they're not that bad really, unless they get drunk (from money and power) and…..well, they really do love us or they wouldn’t charge us all those exorbitant fees and say they're putting our interests first all the time, right?
    12 Dec 2010, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    How can it be migrating to the right when most of my comments in this thread have been rated highly negative. This board is becoming decidely left, not right. I don't understand why those on the left even frequent sites like these. The left hates profit, they hate private investment, they hate choice etc. You guys on the left should be perusing the Huffington Post. Any excess money you have you should be donating to the IRS to help pay off the national debt or giving it away to the poor.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    I was referring to the editors, not the readers.

     

    Since you mention it, however, certain articles seem to strike a nerve, being kind of no-brainers to most sensible folks.

     

    But most commenters on most articles are most definitely right-leaning.

     

    And "the left" actually isn't at all like you describe, but one thing everyone should hate is misinformation and generalization.
    12 Dec 2010, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3985) | Send Message
     
    It's sad how the lines have been drawn so people can only think in terms of Repubs and Dems, in shades of "communist/socialist" and "fascist/oligarch". I'd propose the center has a lot of room for consensus building, but folks don't care to peer beyond their blinders. With partisan politics defining the sides, the partisans have decided that anyone who wants a level playing field to make a little money must be a "socialist" on the one hand and on the other we have the so called "oligarchs" who claim to believe in and be products of economic determinism.

     

    The problem in this country is a political system that has lost its ability to enable real policy and real change, a "favored few" ideology which has given up looking beyond its self serving needs for the good of the nation on the one hand, a broken system of entitlements and services destroying the wealth of the country on the other, and a crippled central authority incapable of leading and.creating meaningful change leading the party. And that's why both the left and the right hate Obama.
    12 Dec 2010, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    The behavior of Wall Street, and Wall Streets' lackeys in Washington, is driving me to the left. I came to this site to discuss investment, which I still do. But the blind ignorance and denial of the truth by the Wall Street Apologists is driving me more and more into the camp (not of socialists and communists, per se), but in to opposition to the rich and self-satisfied -- those bastards who gambled away our money the first time, and then went weeping and crawling and pleading to the government to give them all more of our money -- which Washington did. Now they say social security and social programs ruined the country. We know the truth. Bankers and Wall Street thieves ruined the country. They exported American jobs to the Third World by the millions. And now they act surprised that Obama can resurrect American jobs. What do they care -- they're still getting rich; they're still getting welfare checks from Washington. They don't care if American workers find work. And they really don't want American workers to be well-paid for the work they do, which would cut into their profit-margins.

     

    Imagine ruining the global economy by gambling all our money away, forcing Washington to give them more of our money, and then dolling out billions in bonuses to the same guys who lost all that money in the first place, the geniuses, the Masters of the Universe, that blew all their money on a housing bubble, when everyone knew that a housing bubble was a form of financial death.

     

    Bernanke continues to funnel billions to the banks, giving them free lunch after free lunch, saying QE II won't add jobs probably (but it will keep the bankers rich); saying also that QE III might be needed. Hell, why don't we just sign up for the feudal system in America. Everyone works for McDonalds for the minimum wage; and Wall Street and Washington work out a heraldic system of Lords, and Earls, and Counts and Marquises for themselves?

     

    The bonfire is getting larger. Are those effigies of Wall Street titans that are going up in flames? Or are they more than mere effigies?
    13 Dec 2010, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

     

    THE SECOND COMING

     

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; <----
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

     

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
    13 Dec 2010, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand."

     

    Maybe the Irish drunk in him realized that their debts would come due some day.
    13 Dec 2010, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2707) | Send Message
     
    Michael, I read your posts and often think you blow hard. However, this particular posts is exceptional, for you have reasoned me into an appreciation for your thinking process. There is nothing you have stated with which I would argue.

     

    It is the destruction of the petit bourgeoisie, rather than the haute bourgeoisie that we rue. Unlike most, I do not use these terms derisively but simply as a categorization.
    13 Dec 2010, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Wall Street is good, it makes us competitive in the financial markets around the world...Of course, all the whining like babies comes from a couple of communists in SA.....envy is the key, the communists and socialists are frustrated, that they are not successful...that's it, I touched a nerve....
    13 Dec 2010, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    @Postivethoughts - The reason you, Wyatt and some others get high negs is because you make STOOPID, nonsense comments. It has nothing to do left or right.

     

    I think it would be good to do what Yahoo does - posts with too many neg votes are automatically hidden. You have to click on the post to read it, instead of seeing it automatically when you scroll through.
    13 Dec 2010, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Good post. I feel the same way. There seems to be confusion on the part of some, distingushing American enterprise, from the New York Mafia fraud consisting of phony mortgages, creation of virtual naked shorts camaflaged with computer mumbo jumbo, and the corruption of our regulators and legislators by these conspirators.
    13 Dec 2010, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    If the framework didn't exist, the corruption would be difficult to achieve as free markets typically revert back to their mean and shenanigans do not reward themselves as more customers move to better, more honest institutions that work practically.

     

    Everything that's not working in the system is a result of government intrusion, meddling with the 'free' market and bastardizing it until it no longer functions anymore. Why was there such gaming in the mortgage industry? Because of ZIRP and CRA. And there you have it. Anything else; 'greedy banks', 'fat cats', 'Bush' just doesn't work unless you're desperate to put the blame anywhere rather than where it should really be.
    13 Dec 2010, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    My comments aren't stupid.

     

    Regarding healthcare, I know the result of public healthcare because I live in a country which has it. Private healthcare is illegal in my country and it creates so many problems. One of the worst feelings in the world is being sick and not having the legal option of paying a doctor to help you. Many people talk about how they are outraged that some Americans can't afford healthcare. Well, think of how outrageous it is that Canadians pay taxes for public health care and then are still refused the care. If you refuse to pay the taxes, they will confiscate your property and potentially throw you in jail. Yet, they still don't have to provide you with a doctor. There are millions of Canadians that pay taxes for healthcare and don't even have a family doctor because of shortages.

     

    In Canada, I can pay for healthcare for my dog or cat, but not myself. Most Canadians have pets and most of them can afford veterinary services for their pets, but when you ask them to consider private health care for humans, they scoff at the idea. Most Canadians can afford to go to the dentist or the chiropractor, yet that is private. Why is it legal and acceptable in Canada to pay a dentist to take care of my teeth but not legal and acceptable to pay a specialist to care for another part of m body?

     

    Secondly, America created its wealth because of its private enterprise system. China has created wealth because of its move to a more private-based system. The same thing is happening in Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia etc. So, it makes no sense for America or Canada for that matter, to go in the opposite direction. The government is a cost. If they are to be involved, it better be absoultely necessary. And if they are involved, there interference shouldn't be composed of consuming vast sums of GDP and then distributing it to various special interest groups.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, Spaid_fr. I do have a thinking process, and an underlying order. Sometimes I have to blow hard to try to get it out into the light. This order is invisible and so it is very hard to manifest.
    14 Dec 2010, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (981) | Send Message
     
    > Why is it legal and acceptable in Canada to pay a dentist to take care of my teeth but not legal and acceptable to pay a specialist to care for another part of m body?

     

    Should be acceptable. In most countries with public healthcare there are also private clinics for everything. I am guessing they are not developed in Canada because you can easily go to the US for treatment. And if not to the US, you can always go to India for a complicated surgery.
    14 Dec 2010, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    The private market isn't developed in Canada because the politicians want to control that aspect of people's lives. Public healthcare means revenue control, control of people, control of votes etc. It's all about control.
    14 Dec 2010, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12844) | Send Message
     
    Positive:

     

    You've just nailed what the central theme is of each and every leftist, socialistic scheme, from healthcare to education to global warming, and whatever they can conjure up next. They're all cloaked differently, but seek the same end.
    14 Dec 2010, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Jackson999
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    So if you dislike Canada so much and you think that the USA has such a great healthcare system, then why don't you move to the USA and shut-up?
    14 Dec 2010, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    I agree,global warming has been one of the heaviest propaganda by the ultra-left of the Dems....see Al-Gore....to attack oil companies...
    15 Dec 2010, 07:48 AM Reply Like
  • hayekvonfriedman
    , contributor
    Comments (570) | Send Message
     
    Loeb and other itinerant Hamptonites exhibited an incredible sado-masochistic insouciance when they hijacked America and put the Chief Pretender in charge.

     

    How do these schmucks get to run billions of dollars when they are conflicted psychoanalyst dissertation material?

     

    Chickens come home to roost, caviar sometimes turns sour...mix the two as the Saul Alinsky hedgies did and you have a cocktail of a failure. What plausible rationale can Loeb give that would convince a good ole boy like me that by actively and publicly agitating for Obama he was not merely doing his time on the "guilt plantation" and now we again pay the band for these idiots dnacing with two left feet.
    12 Dec 2010, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4010) | Send Message
     
    "Can't we all just get along?"
    12 Dec 2010, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Paine in America
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    >Obama has no clue about economics and so he is floundering around

     

    Never give a pen to a floudering scoundrel
    12 Dec 2010, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (418) | Send Message
     
    for the love of pete...this is America!
    As smart, caring people, let's find the solutions to the problems!
    Anybody have one, or more?

     

    Anyone?

     

    How about encouraging saving and building family responsibility and wealth (aka sustainability?)

     

    I'll start:

     

    Treble the roth/ira/sep contribution ceilings.
    Quadruple HSA contribution ceilings.
    Make education free market.
    Social Security buy-out options and assignability.
    Make unemployment a system of loans.
    Privatize Freddy & Fannie.

     

    Small things that can move the ball down the field.
    Let's get to it!
    12 Dec 2010, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Raise interest rates, pay down debts; raise taxes, pay down debts; encourage savings. View deflation as a natural part of the economic cycle, with the goal of driving prices down to the affordable levels again for most working Americans.

     

    There is a time for inflated profits -- the Business Growth Cycle -- and there is a time for deflated profits.

     

    Unmask the fed; audit their books; then decide if we need a Fed. Prosecute white collar crimes with a hungry insistence.

     

    Free education for anyone who qualifies to go to college. We are only as strong as our education allows us to be.

     

    To Big to Fail Institutions get cut back so that competition is possible.

     

    Campaign reform: elections happen more quickly with harsh spending limits. Keep the rich from buying out both sides of the government, so that they own everything.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (1812) | Send Message
     
    The democrats and many republicans for that matter won't allow that to happen because it cuts them out as middlemen. Government is a criminal enterprise and those that try to reduce its size and influence get drowned out by all those that have invested in the pyramid scheme. If you try and refuse government, they will attack you and try to find anyway possible to weaken you and marginalize you.

     

    An armed revolution is the only solution.
    13 Dec 2010, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (981) | Send Message
     
    Yes, government is an extermly ungreatful, unfair and agressive insitution I agree. But take it from a russian - you don't want a revolution. It solves nothing. Just installs new masters on the top to bleed you dry so much faster.
    The only way to really improve things is to gain influence through peaceful means.
    14 Dec 2010, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8378) | Send Message
     
    Armed revolution? Peaceful means? If all American workers took a week of sick-leave at the same time, that would send a signal to both Washington and New York that the time for lying and looting has ended. If they wake up and sober up, peaceful means. If they don't, invoke the rights of the American revolution. (A war is easier to start than it is to stop -- so if we start a war, then we're in it to the end.)
    15 Dec 2010, 03:15 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2707) | Send Message
     
    We've outsourced managing American enterprise to a Russian and a Canadian?
    15 Dec 2010, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (981) | Send Message
     
    >We've outsourced managing American enterprise to a Russian and a Canadian?

     

    Lol, believe me I have very good qualifications. Lots of work experience and 3 MS degrees - math, business and finance. But you americans want 3 times more money for the same job I do -)). Sounds familiar?
    15 Dec 2010, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    inthemoney, We need 3x more money to make up for the American government take. If we just had to afford Russian graft, it would probably be a lot cheaper.
    15 Dec 2010, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Don't exaggerate.

     

    The "take" maxes out 35% -- so even if you're in the top 1% of Americans in terms of income, you're still making more than twice as much as your Russian counterpart. And most of that top 1% has an effective tax rate of less than 20% due to many deductions, loopholes, etc.

     

    Russians pay ~13%, I believe.
    15 Dec 2010, 03:00 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|