User21284

CIT's Failure Could Threaten Financial Sector's Overall Recovery

The brilliance of some of the contributors here can be measured by such references - presumably to the current legislation working its way through the Senate Finance Committee - as "govt run healthcare".

Ben Stein, Predatory Bait-and-Switch Merchant

from Kount ...

<<Futhermore, Stein's movie doesn't promote creationism, it debunks the way the theory of evolution is presented and the pollution of science with politics.>>

How about the pollution of science with religion, i.e., the promotion of creationism as an "equal partner" as part of the science curriculum in our schools?

More:

<<Salmon evidently covets Stein's NYT gig, but Salmon works for Reuters.On their site they solicit money to "fight global warming". Felix, do they cut you in on some of the swag from your gullible lefty readers?>>

We "lefties" who find ourselves in accord with the vast majority of science on the subject of global warming are afflicted with the same "gullibility" that causes us to view the Earth is a sphere, from which one will not fall off the edge if one sails too far into the ocean. As to the notion that Salmon covets Stein's NYT gig or somehow might receive "swag" from Reuters via the global warming issue: another characteristic of "lefties" and other common-sense folk is the view that the primary motivating factors in this world of ours are not necessarily power and money. I think many of these people might also be referred to as "Christians."

Ben Stein, Predatory Bait-and-Switch Merchant

<<Wow certainly a hit job on Stein with comments to match. I see free enterprise is only free if people follow Felix's definition of acceptability

I'll be sure to check with Mr Salmon before I embark on anything that smacks of commercialism in the future.

So let me see all the spiteful posters: would you do the ad for $100 - probably not, but if I upped the ante a bit - say $10 million - would you then reconsider? Or better still $100 million do I hear some of the sanctimonious wavering....... perhaps even the upright poster who is -finally- losing respect for the NY Times because Ben is still associated with them. Are you serious? [Mafeking]>>

What you're contending is that at a certain price, everyone is a whore. Perhaps so, but speak for yourself only. At what price would you sleep with Michael Jackson, were he still around?
Is it possible that someone else would not sully his/her reputation, regardless of the financial enticement?

What we have established for sure is that Ben Stein is a whore. The unanswered question is the price at which he got down on his knees.

6 More Stock Briefs

You're somewhat correct, while statistically off. Current Rassmussen banner headline: "53% (not 59%) Say More Government Spending Hurts the Economy". To parlay this slim stat into a representation of what "the American people" say or think is rather presuming.

We need deficit spending to prop up the economy. This is in the face of a yawning federal debt that is as large as it is because of Reagan and Dubya, who each reduced taxes while increasing spending, thereby running up huge and largely unnecessary deficits. Of course, Conservatives, all of a sudden, have awoken Rip van Winkle-like to discover "fiscal responsibility" - their definition being the same as ever: cut taxes, reduce spending [just not military spending, or in my district, where a "Bridge to Nowhere" would be just fine]. I'll grant you Ron Paul is an exception.

This is not to say that all the stimulus measures taken to date are things of beauty. (AIG should not have been saved, but drowned in a convenient bath tub. Why are TARP-funded execs still benefiting from tons of bonuses and perks?) But to dismiss all federal spending as you have as "pork" is to deny the reality that properly-directed federal stimuli could do the Nation a great deal of good. Given our rickety infrastructure that's in great need of an overhaul, and unemployment figures that are downright scary, how many of the members of Congress now howling for "fiscal responsibility" do you think would oppose a bill that included needed infrastructure improvements in their own district? And how many of the 53% cited in the Rassmussen poll do you think would oppose such stimulus, if a spending bill were to put to work people in their own district? And if Congressmen/women and voters in general were to support such infrastructure expenditures, wouldn't they be right in doing so?

The Rassmussen Poll question (perhaps like most poll questions) was simplistic. We shouldn't rush to place too much credence on the results of black-or-white questions such as "government spending - good or bad?"

6 More Stock Briefs

Re your "pork barrel" comment. You should have said that revenues gained from taxing gambling would be used to fund projects that YOU don't want.

Perhaps you haven't heard ... we're in a severe recession.

Leaving Green to the Free Market - Barron's

It's great to read the perspective of those who would compare democratically-elected government to the Mafia, and who opine that (unlike our government) the Mafia feels a moral obligation ... to do anything. Speaking of poison - this is a pretty good measure of the degree to which the conservative Right, led by their talk radio arm, has succeeded in poisoning the minds of many Americans to the degree that they feel our government is worse and less moral than the Mafia. These folks aren't joking - they really believe it.

Sure, let's leave it all to free enterprise. The government couldn't possibly have developed the A-bomb or put a man on the moon or run a decent military or a local police force or fire department or built a national road system. And there couldn't possibly be thousands of people working at local, national and state levels such as Americorps volunteers and community organizers (Obama, for example) and teachers, who come back from their educational experience to give back ... and thousands who work at federal agencies like the EPA, where the end product is not to market another brand of "new and improved" detergent, but to make our lives a bit better and safer. Any of the aforementioned must be incompetent losers - because they're not motivated first and foremost by money! ... and therefore, whattheheck good can they be.

Let's get the dirty hands of the government off of the effort to save the planet, and leave it all to free enterprise. Without Greed, there can't be Green!

RBC Picks 20 Companies That Might Benefit From Obama's Infrastructure Plan

<<Obama is, of course, not trying to invest in public works in a cost effective way.

He [Obama] is, however, trying to repay those who voted for him. The CBO has shown that only 1 in 4 dollars allocated to infrastructure construction is spent on it. >>

How was the "1 in 4" figure determined? Over what period of time? Through whose administration(s)? Who knows. Of course, this figure couldn't have been helped by the $223 million appropriated for Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" - the funds provided by the Fed. govt. having been kept by Gov. Sarah Palin after the project was killed.

Also ... (wink, wink) how do we know what Obama's intentions are, since he's been President for such a short period of time. Oh, I forgot: he won't take office until late January.

Let's not condemn Pres.-elect Obama until it's reasonable to do so - for Republicans, this means Day 1 after his inauguration.

Obama Is Bad for the Economy - Barron's

I commend Barron’s for pointing out the folly of increasing taxes on our super-rich, as would occur under a President Obama. One needs only to perceive the bonanza our country has reaped since going from the tough economic years of the Clinton presidency, to the years of across-the-board prosperity we’ve enjoyed during the presidency of George W. Bush, to see how foolish such an action would be.

And why increase the tax burden on the very ones among us who have brought us this economic cornucopia? Take John McCain, for example. He’s wealthy, but why increase taxes on him? After all, he must have arrived at this wealth by way of growing a business and hiring people as he went along, and we wouldn’t want to stultify his entrepreneurial acumen that has brought economic benefits to all. The McCains could have sat on their wealth and clipped bond coupons or something – but, instead, they had the courage to venture into real estate and now own 7 (or is it 10?) homes. Think of how this has stimulated the real estate economy! So we as a country don’t want to hobble such “family operations” or cause our super-rich to curtail their “shopping trips and travel” – it would just be counter-productive.
We shouldn’t tax the wealthy at all – think of the added jobs we’d create if the super-rich had all that additional money to plow into their businesses, buy blue-chip stocks, go on shopping trips and travel – and prime our economic pump as they went along!
In fact, a properly-incentivized tax code would SUBSIDIZE the super-rich: not only should they pay no taxes, but we should grant tax REBATES in direct proportion to their wealth.

Think of all the jobs we’d create … wake up, America!

Atlas Energy: More 'Criminally Undervalued' Than Cramer Realizes

"the domestic enemies of the usa did not die with the soviet union . bankrupting our country is their goal; annoy them by supporting - drill now drill here. "

No amount of dreaming, wishful thinking, name calling and carrying the ball for the oil and gas lobby - promoted by the "drill here/drill now" guy Knut Gingrich or anyone else - will lead us to some fancied promised land where we can be the masters of our fate based on fossil fuels. And the notion that we can magically make use of oil locked up in Colorado shale conveniently ignores the environmental devastation (that's right, DEVASTATION) that would result from an undertaking similar in scope to that under way in Canada. This is the Colorado Rockies, not northern Alberta, where the moose and mosquitos play. As for drilling along the Santa Barbara coast, here's a thought ... let's first drill along Jeb Bush's Florida coast, and see how far that idea goes. The operative term here is NIMBY and, even if we could meaningfully close the gap between consumption and demand - which we can't - it wouldn't begin to solve the long-term problem that we, as a nation, have to get off the dime and get serious about energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

As to the "domestic enemies of the usa" - here's one whose comments are worth noting. This domestic enemy said:

" America has fallen well behind European nations such as Germany, Spain and the Netherlands that already reap huge percentages of their power from wind.

'We're very ignorant in this country about other forms of energy (than fossil fuels),' he said."

This domestic eneny of the USA went on to say that "the United States has 4 percent of the world's population and 3 percent of known oil reserves, but is responsible for 25 percent of world oil consumption.

That means the country spends $700 billion on imported oil each year, which will be unsustainable as prices keep rising.

And, he said, oil prices are unlikely to drop long-term because world demand of 86 million barrels a day exceeds the world's production of 85 million, which is about as high as the industry can go."

In other words, cut out the propaganda, bring a halt to the dead-end policies and wishful thinking that have brought us to this point and the American auto industry to the brink of financial disaster: get serious about a long-term national energy plan that will REDUCE our dependence on oil and natural gas - while using the far more domestically-oriented and cleaner natural gas as a bridge fuel, for some years to come.

And the "domestic energy of the USA" I've quoted is T. Boone Pickens.