shootpar2001

Looking Back at Fiscal 2009

WRONG!!!!!!!!
Bush proposed a 2009 budget; it was dead on arrival (DOA) in a Dem congress (OH! now I remember). The budget that was finally passed was the one with all the earmarks (OH, Yeh?).
How convienient to forget!!!!!!!
On Obama's watch; nice try.............


On Oct 12 09:52 AM jdl51 wrote:

> This is the final Bush budget. All of the deficit, aside from the
> $200 billion stimulus spending, are what's left of the Bush administration
> "fiscal responsibility". In other words, Obama is not responsible
> for this deficit and it's increased government spending. And Bush's
> proposed budget for 2009/2010 had a projected deficit of $1.4 trillion.
> So before Obama even set foot in the WH, these deficits were already
> baked in the cake. Not bad considering Bush started with a budget
> in surplus and projected surpluses as far as the eye could see. He
> averaged around $750 billion a year in deficits with nothing to show
> for it except two wars and a financial meltdown that almost destroyed
> our economy. Now let's see if the public will remember how well the
> republicans did last time they were in power and vote for them again
> next year.

How Much Natural Gas Remains in the USA?

Would like to see some discussion on the 'consequences' of
"Cap and Trade" legislation on the price of oil/gas, etc.
From my viewpoint; I can see volitility.........
Recovery? Double Dip? Alternative Energy Promotions?
Taxes on fossil fuels, etc.

In the spirit of Seeking Alpha.......... I see potential profits!!!!!!!

Playing Defense with ETFs and Preferred Stocks

Check out Blackrock preffered (PSY).
Have been long for six months (lucky so far??).
It is not concentrated with the financial preferreds.

Judge's Refusal of BofA / Merrill Bonuses Could Unleash Reality on Financials

Be careful what you ask for...........
Yes, many a 'wall st. fatcat' is/was overpaid!!
But we all know that SH*T flows downhill.....look at last month's employee wage report (Negative).
As we devalue what the top-tier earns; we devalue the rest of us who are trying to climb that 'ladder'.
As we mentally devalue the services that everyone else supplies to us, we also devalue ourselves, for those at the bottom (minimum wage) this is economic russian roulette; you merely survive or get blown out of the job market. As our gov't pursues a populist agenda and devalues the 'fatcats'; I ask.... where are the $$$$$ going to come from??????????

Money Market Funds Are Running Out of Product

Therefore, investors are being forced to take more risk to get 'some' yield. Exactly whet the Fed wants and needs.
The returns on corp. debt, muni's and high yield may just the beginning. Imagine if this senario slowly plays-out and recovery is just steady (not what pols want), it could be the perfect place for patient investors to be. With a slow recovery and everyone except the Feds paying down debt, why not get in line and collect the monthly payments?

Disclosurers: (PTY) (ACG) (MSY) (PSY)

Three Ways to Profit from Increasing Taxes

Just because there is more spending on something, does not a profit make. Infrastucture; the gov't consistently overpays for this, leaving little for profit. Energy is under attack from our own Prez; with more taxes (cap & trade) to come; no profit left there.
Lastly, healthcare: same story. "We are going to cut the costs to the average American". Where does the profit come from here?
Sorry!!
Yes, with gov't inefficiencies the probabilities of profit are there; howevr they will be fleeting and scarce.

Mutual Fund Flows Keep High Yield Issuers Alive - For Now

Yes!
Investors are chasing yield; that is what the Fed wants, to move up the risk scale. That is what gets the economy going. With corps. and individuals paying down debt; the savers are investing to collect that monthly 'rent' payment.
Yields are still historically high, and with default rates still below what the doomsayers are predicting the reason to invest is obvious.
As I see more and more layoffs; I know that corps. are still trying to lower their debt levels. The bond fund managers know this too and are helping us investors to reap the rewards of excess spending.
Thank You.

Disclosures: (PTY) (MSY) (DHF)

Journalists Are News Companies’ Most Valuable Asset

Sorry!!!!
I do not see it; valuable assets?
A journalist regurgitates information; when I crash my car into something and they come some time later and report about it and that it tied up traffic for two hours......where is the value?
I could state example after example; in today's instant world a journalist adding their two-cents or 'spin' is not adding value.
That accident generated five 911 calls, three cell phone pictues and numerous tweets; my own navigation system was alerted before the journalist had an idea.
It is not news that I had a bad day or my child was screaming or whatever; any and all third person, fourth person, etc. is old and many times distorted and thus irrelevant.
As information becomes more accessible and mobile; a journalist with their opinion or prospective are just less and less relevant!!!!

BofA, Wells Fargo, Citi: Preferred Stock Analysis

Good short article.
There is a plethora of opportunities in the preferred arena.
Either strong diligence or fund approach is probably warranted.
I personally believe that the pref. area will yield better results than plain equities.

Disclosurers: (PSY)

Why Economic Dogma Threatens Our Future Prosperity

also remember that Johnson raided social security to fund Vietnam and you see how terrible this guy really was. By a wide margin the worst president we ever had. The liberals ate it up..... why....he blinded them with 'so-called' civil rights movement. What a crock of SH*T, if true civil rights were instituted; why is the cry for reparations still being heard?


On Jul 11 10:12 AM Tedspick wrote:

> Lets see now, who was in the White House during the infamous "Guns
> and Butter" time when we had the "Great Society" as well as that
> lovely war in Vietnam? And didn't Johnson come BEFORE the infamous
> Reagan? How was all that paid for? Did the democratic congress balance
> the budget then?
>
> Another question centers on the measured increase in government revenues
> that accompanied historic tax cuts. Nobody in their right mind thinks
> that we can cut taxes and at the same time indulge in massive spending
> increases (Reagan purchased an end to the cold war doing that) -
> how about cutting taxes AND holding the line on spending at the same
> time? Thats when you get the best of both worlds.

Why Economic Dogma Threatens Our Future Prosperity

What a crock of S**T.
No mention that 'the wealthy' pay all the taxes!!!!!!!!
.......and you do not have to make the 'magical' $250,000 to
pay more than your fair share. Where is this 'magical' revenue source going to come from?
You see... all that lost wealth you are complaining about came from this same group that you want to tax some more. They have tax loss' for years to come; thus rate increases are not going to solve the overspending problem anytime soon (years).
Now that the 'magical' stimulus is not working, and the Blame Bush
strategy is wearing thin; let's blame someone else.
In review; get a fricking clue.........!!!!!!!!!



On Jul 10 01:15 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

> What a SUPERB essay! I've bookmarked this - to refer to it myself
> in the future.
>
> For those criticizing the author's tax "heresy", it's important to
> focus. It's not the poor and middle-class who have been "under-taxed",
> it's the filthy-rich. 1% of the U.S. population holds more than 35%
> of ALL wealth - and 55% of ALL stock. And their grip on America's
> wealth grows stronger every year.
>
> Meanwhile 80% of the U.S. population holds only 15% of total wealth
> (about 25% less than in other industrialized nations).
>
> Unless Americans believe that 80% of their population are a bunch
> of losers who DESERVE to get poorer and poorer every year, then the
> numbers are unequivocal. The very wealthy have been grossly UNDER-TAXED
> every year - and as a result, they are the ONLY people who have been
> benefiting from Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" economics of giving
> the wealthy a free-ride (at the expense of everyone else).

4 Drivers of the Exploding Federal Deficit

........and some one we all know wants to spend more on healthcare.
Then try to tax energy........can you spell DISASTER!!!!!!!!

Imagine if Paulson's treasury would not have pushed borrowing to the short end of the curve and thus lower interest payments (2-year notes).

Higher Savings Rate Shouldn't Affect GDP, But It Will Anyway

You too quickly dismiss the inefficient gov't story.
You made a token pass.... the problem is that what is set-up; is continuos inefficient gov't and thus a permanent drain on GDP.
Who is hurt most by a negative GDP?
Depends who who ask..... the answer is politicans.
They are the one's who claim to create jobs and prosperity and any business owner will tell you; mostly what they do is get in the way.

TV's Revenue Crisis: Mind the Gap

Your analysis is good; as far as it goes.
What about the political bias or perceived bias' of the media.
Whether it be liberals who have never watched a FOX broadcast
(because of 'right-wing' bias) or conservatives who have permanently left the 'broadcast' media station; tired of the bias.
Does this not exponentially push downside viewership and thus revenues of the 'old' media?
I would be interested in a more accurate study of this discourse.

It's July 2009: Where's That Promised Recovery?

That's fine for you........
But the pols in charge have been saying 'things are better'.
Many are running out of benefits....where is my 'CHANGE'.



On Jul 01 09:18 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> I've decided to wait another 6 months before expressing any doubt
> or disappointment. Until then I'm not interested in negative judgements.