Freedoms Truth's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/268193/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/178291-why-i-would-not-bet-on-iphone-over-android?source=feed#comment-808131 808131 And FWIW, I am seriously looking to buy a Droid.]]> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:23:22 -0500 And FWIW, I am seriously looking to buy a Droid.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960-will-general-electric-s-wind-farm-be-worth-the-taxpayers-investment?source=feed#comment-804425 804425 Wind operating ratios are typically no more than 25%. pathetic.

" For instance it rarely goes from full power to nothing, instead varying a little."
That doesnt matter, what matters is the worst that can happen.

" And by having many wind farms"
... DOESNT HELP THE INTERMITTENT FACTOR as a wind farm will all vary in sync to the local weather pattern. No wind in West Texas means 5GW of rated capacity will operate at 5%.

"or far better, more cost effective, WG's on homes, buildings, they average each other out."
It is NOT more cost effective. The Wind farms in windy remote areas are HUGE. Each turbine blade is HUGE, they do that to get the economy of scale needed - and get 3mw/windmill. you cannot place them on Houses, that is foolish. All you can place on buildings are rinky-dink small windmills that will generate far less energy and therefore are far less cost-effective.
Moreover, unless those houses are placed specifically in a windy area (rarely happens) they would be even less effective.]]> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:30:12 -0500 Wind operating ratios are typically no more than 25%. pathetic.

" For instance it rarely goes from full power to nothing, instead varying a little."
That doesnt matter, what matters is the worst that can happen.

" And by having many wind farms"
... DOESNT HELP THE INTERMITTENT FACTOR as a wind farm will all vary in sync to the local weather pattern. No wind in West Texas means 5GW of rated capacity will operate at 5%.

"or far better, more cost effective, WG's on homes, buildings, they average each other out."
It is NOT more cost effective. The Wind farms in windy remote areas are HUGE. Each turbine blade is HUGE, they do that to get the economy of scale needed - and get 3mw/windmill. you cannot place them on Houses, that is foolish. All you can place on buildings are rinky-dink small windmills that will generate far less energy and therefore are far less cost-effective.
Moreover, unless those houses are placed specifically in a windy area (rarely happens) they would be even less effective.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960-will-general-electric-s-wind-farm-be-worth-the-taxpayers-investment?source=feed#comment-804419 804419
The debate is a political construct because there are those who want to regulate energy are using phony AGW fears to enable it. 50 years and CO2 up from 300ppm to 380ppm and temps go up a mere .4C in 50 years. That is not a 'cost' that is a side-benefit!

" Those who benefit from the burning of fossil fuels for energy are happy to disregard the imputed cost of global warming, since it is born by future generations."
The 'costs' will include the benefits of more CO2 increasing crop yields and making the bio-mass and bio-diversity of the planet better.

"Nuclear plants in the US do not yet reflect the cost of permanent storage of radioactive waste."
Yes they do. Price-Anderson forces all nuclear plants to pay into a fund, and the plants were assessed for Yucca mountain too. The travesty is that nuke plants have been paying for 20 years, billions of dollars, and Yucca hasnt been made operational. That's govt for ya.

"However, this cost will be much easier to quantify than global warming."
Yucca mountain - about $30 billion over 20 years.... a few billion/yr would be more than enough to operate it, but Govt tries to do nothing very expensively. It didnt help that Obama s**tcanned 8 years of G W Bush admin work on it, effectively flushing billions previously spent. That makes the Nevada primary the most expensive election in history!

If we have to suffer nonsense like that in the name of Global Warming aka "Cap-and-Trade" we will be in the poorhouse as a result. cap-and-trade is a $3,000/family cost adder.

"There are solutions for the storage of energy generated from intermittent sources, compressed air or hydraulic come to mind, the compressed air is used in a gas turbine and is suitable for peaking."
Expensive Rub Goldberg ideas will only make the economics of intermittent power sources worse. If you are lucky, you can hook it up to a hydro plant ... if you are lucky.

"As an accountant, I believe it is important that all activities that harm society should be charged with the costs they impose:"

People who vote for Democrats should therefore pay the rest of society for inflicting them on us.]]> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:24:50 -0500
The debate is a political construct because there are those who want to regulate energy are using phony AGW fears to enable it. 50 years and CO2 up from 300ppm to 380ppm and temps go up a mere .4C in 50 years. That is not a 'cost' that is a side-benefit!

" Those who benefit from the burning of fossil fuels for energy are happy to disregard the imputed cost of global warming, since it is born by future generations."
The 'costs' will include the benefits of more CO2 increasing crop yields and making the bio-mass and bio-diversity of the planet better.

"Nuclear plants in the US do not yet reflect the cost of permanent storage of radioactive waste."
Yes they do. Price-Anderson forces all nuclear plants to pay into a fund, and the plants were assessed for Yucca mountain too. The travesty is that nuke plants have been paying for 20 years, billions of dollars, and Yucca hasnt been made operational. That's govt for ya.

"However, this cost will be much easier to quantify than global warming."
Yucca mountain - about $30 billion over 20 years.... a few billion/yr would be more than enough to operate it, but Govt tries to do nothing very expensively. It didnt help that Obama s**tcanned 8 years of G W Bush admin work on it, effectively flushing billions previously spent. That makes the Nevada primary the most expensive election in history!

If we have to suffer nonsense like that in the name of Global Warming aka "Cap-and-Trade" we will be in the poorhouse as a result. cap-and-trade is a $3,000/family cost adder.

"There are solutions for the storage of energy generated from intermittent sources, compressed air or hydraulic come to mind, the compressed air is used in a gas turbine and is suitable for peaking."
Expensive Rub Goldberg ideas will only make the economics of intermittent power sources worse. If you are lucky, you can hook it up to a hydro plant ... if you are lucky.

"As an accountant, I believe it is important that all activities that harm society should be charged with the costs they impose:"

People who vote for Democrats should therefore pay the rest of society for inflicting them on us.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960-will-general-electric-s-wind-farm-be-worth-the-taxpayers-investment?source=feed#comment-804413 804413
This is wholly due to the insane eco-extremism that has driven anti-energy politics. The same people who oppose drilling oppose nuclear, and they insist that hugely expensive solar and wind be tried.

The most insane has been Germany's decision to shut down safe operating nuclear plants. Doing this while making commitments wrt CO2 reductions that they wont meet is insane.

All the scare tactics about 'uranium supply' (when it is a small cost of nuclear energy) and 'nuclear waste' (aka used fuel that is now stored on site safely at reactors and not a big problem) is missing the point: Nuclear could be more widespread but myopic policies driven by environmental politics is stopping it.]]> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:14:18 -0500
This is wholly due to the insane eco-extremism that has driven anti-energy politics. The same people who oppose drilling oppose nuclear, and they insist that hugely expensive solar and wind be tried.

The most insane has been Germany's decision to shut down safe operating nuclear plants. Doing this while making commitments wrt CO2 reductions that they wont meet is insane.

All the scare tactics about 'uranium supply' (when it is a small cost of nuclear energy) and 'nuclear waste' (aka used fuel that is now stored on site safely at reactors and not a big problem) is missing the point: Nuclear could be more widespread but myopic policies driven by environmental politics is stopping it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177853-chevron-spending-cuts-coming-in-2010?source=feed#comment-803012 803012
Correction: This is not true, the oceans and land absorbs half of man's emissions already (4Gt-C/yr out of 8Gt-C/y emitted). CO2 has a 38 years residence time in atmosphere, it eventually gets recycled. Oceans have long-term capacity to story 50 times what is in the air. Most of the carbon that was once in the atmosphere has been turned into limestone and other matter, including the abundant coal that we have.

If our oil consumption only goes from 85 mbd to 104 mbd now to 2030, then we are increasing consumption at under 1%/yr.
If there is both political and pricing pressure against oil use, it may not even grow that much.]]> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:33:57 -0500
Correction: This is not true, the oceans and land absorbs half of man's emissions already (4Gt-C/yr out of 8Gt-C/y emitted). CO2 has a 38 years residence time in atmosphere, it eventually gets recycled. Oceans have long-term capacity to story 50 times what is in the air. Most of the carbon that was once in the atmosphere has been turned into limestone and other matter, including the abundant coal that we have.

If our oil consumption only goes from 85 mbd to 104 mbd now to 2030, then we are increasing consumption at under 1%/yr.
If there is both political and pricing pressure against oil use, it may not even grow that much.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176515-our-current-economic-illusions?source=feed#comment-790251 790251
Which is exactly what they did. They needed to overstate the danger, in order to sell their bogus 'solution'. Meanwhile, the inexorable workings of the economy would go through the recession-recovery cycle anyway.

" The regime has always maintained at least from what I hear them say, that things were going to get worse before better."

That's akin to predicting the rising of the sun in the East.

No, the REAL bogus statistics the Obama admin/Regime are peddling are the 'jobs saved' numbers. We now know many of those numbers are beyond bogus - they listed jobs 'saved' in Congressional districts that dont even exist!]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:20:24 -0500
Which is exactly what they did. They needed to overstate the danger, in order to sell their bogus 'solution'. Meanwhile, the inexorable workings of the economy would go through the recession-recovery cycle anyway.

" The regime has always maintained at least from what I hear them say, that things were going to get worse before better."

That's akin to predicting the rising of the sun in the East.

No, the REAL bogus statistics the Obama admin/Regime are peddling are the 'jobs saved' numbers. We now know many of those numbers are beyond bogus - they listed jobs 'saved' in Congressional districts that dont even exist!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176515-our-current-economic-illusions?source=feed#comment-790243 790243 Wrong. the 'stimulus' was really a local/state govt spending bailout and was mostly Government spending. That's one reason why it was so ineffective.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:16:44 -0500 Wrong. the 'stimulus' was really a local/state govt spending bailout and was mostly Government spending. That's one reason why it was so ineffective.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176515-our-current-economic-illusions?source=feed#comment-790233 790233
Dear political Partisan: Ahem, private sector employment is down about 7 million since Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House in Jan 2007.

In accusing others of putting a political prism on things, you are PROJECTING.

AxIT: "and now under the dems things are improving."
Employment, GDP, value of dollar, and deficit/debt, are all worse than when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took Congress.

"It must hurt, but you have to live with this."

We will be going another 6 years before the economy recovers to have employment as low as it was under the Republican Congress. It must hurt, but you have to live with the consequence of your own BS. You've put a bunch of clowns in charge of the economy, and the consequences are lower growth, higher deficits and higher unemployment for as long as the Democrats remain in charge.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:14:19 -0500
Dear political Partisan: Ahem, private sector employment is down about 7 million since Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House in Jan 2007.

In accusing others of putting a political prism on things, you are PROJECTING.

AxIT: "and now under the dems things are improving."
Employment, GDP, value of dollar, and deficit/debt, are all worse than when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took Congress.

"It must hurt, but you have to live with this."

We will be going another 6 years before the economy recovers to have employment as low as it was under the Republican Congress. It must hurt, but you have to live with the consequence of your own BS. You've put a bunch of clowns in charge of the economy, and the consequences are lower growth, higher deficits and higher unemployment for as long as the Democrats remain in charge.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/36784?source=feed#comment-766627 766627
They rape the taxpayer, force unfunded mandates on the states, gut Medicare Advantage and hide $300 billion in costs in a 'doc fix' so any 'savings' are a phony "it'll happen if I really go on a diet that I will instantly break" promise. Oh, and they have 10 years of taxes and 7 years of the program costs by staggering the two to tweak the deficit numbers.

It's a massive shell game and these numbers are phony to the max - THE REAL 10 YEAR COST IS ALMOST $2 TRILLION, THE DEFICIT HIT IN REALITY IS $400+ BILLION OVER 10 YEARS. Check out independent analysis not the CBO....

There are cost additions, no cost reductions.

It's like the joke: How do you know when a politician is lying .. his lips are moving.]]> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:11:41 -0500
They rape the taxpayer, force unfunded mandates on the states, gut Medicare Advantage and hide $300 billion in costs in a 'doc fix' so any 'savings' are a phony "it'll happen if I really go on a diet that I will instantly break" promise. Oh, and they have 10 years of taxes and 7 years of the program costs by staggering the two to tweak the deficit numbers.

It's a massive shell game and these numbers are phony to the max - THE REAL 10 YEAR COST IS ALMOST $2 TRILLION, THE DEFICIT HIT IN REALITY IS $400+ BILLION OVER 10 YEARS. Check out independent analysis not the CBO....

There are cost additions, no cost reductions.

It's like the joke: How do you know when a politician is lying .. his lips are moving.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169073-policy-lessons-from-the-great-depression?source=feed#comment-739167 739167 The real folly is thinking we are in either cases. We are in the 2009 and 2010 timeframe, circumstances, technology, and much more is different than the same. There are lessons from the great depression, but its not a simplistic 'its just like 70 years ago', when so much is different.

The greatest risk to our economy right how is a leadership in Washington, DC, that pursues tax, regulation and spending policies directed at harming the private sector economy. Of particular concern is the triple threat of ObamaCare, cap&trade, and the ending of the Bush tax cuts. Together, they represent about a $3 trillion (over ten years) tax hike, enough to spiral us into another recession. For those looking for historical repeats, its what Roosevelt did to the economy in 1937-1938 when he raised taxes.

The second greatest risk/factor is the ongoing deleveraging of the economy. If the folks in DC were pro-growth, however, we would get through the deleveraging in short order and come out in decent shape. That is not destined to happen while Obama/Reid/Pelosi run the government.]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:45:19 -0500 The real folly is thinking we are in either cases. We are in the 2009 and 2010 timeframe, circumstances, technology, and much more is different than the same. There are lessons from the great depression, but its not a simplistic 'its just like 70 years ago', when so much is different.

The greatest risk to our economy right how is a leadership in Washington, DC, that pursues tax, regulation and spending policies directed at harming the private sector economy. Of particular concern is the triple threat of ObamaCare, cap&trade, and the ending of the Bush tax cuts. Together, they represent about a $3 trillion (over ten years) tax hike, enough to spiral us into another recession. For those looking for historical repeats, its what Roosevelt did to the economy in 1937-1938 when he raised taxes.

The second greatest risk/factor is the ongoing deleveraging of the economy. If the folks in DC were pro-growth, however, we would get through the deleveraging in short order and come out in decent shape. That is not destined to happen while Obama/Reid/Pelosi run the government.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169073-policy-lessons-from-the-great-depression?source=feed#comment-739157 739157

On Nov 01 09:16 AM CLH wrote:

> The comparison of capitalism to socialism makes no sense at all.
> Capitalism is an economic system and the only one we have. Socialism
> is a religion based on the same things as Christianity (caring for
> the poor and doing away with war etc). Lets not compare apples and
> oranges.
>
> The review is a very good one. This is shown by the many comments.]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:34:11 -0500

On Nov 01 09:16 AM CLH wrote:

> The comparison of capitalism to socialism makes no sense at all.
> Capitalism is an economic system and the only one we have. Socialism
> is a religion based on the same things as Christianity (caring for
> the poor and doing away with war etc). Lets not compare apples and
> oranges.
>
> The review is a very good one. This is shown by the many comments.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169073-policy-lessons-from-the-great-depression?source=feed#comment-739146 739146 > Interesting that you would categorize FDR as the worst president in the history of the US.
>
> Yet, US Presidential polls covering many thousands of historians,
> researchers, academics, writers, etc who have spent their entire
> professional lives studying US Presidents and writing about them totally disagree with you..."

American History in academia today is the polemic of the liberal left that adores more government power and wants the original constitution trashed and replaced by one more in line with socialist thinking. Surveys of academia now show a bias so strong that Republicans/conservatives are an endangered species and on college faculties, you have a mix of 'left' and 'far left'. As such, they adore FDR, the man who did more to destroy American liberty than any other President.

ebworthen: "FDR has been similarly mythologized and his transgressions against the Constitution and the rights of the individual ignored by those who look to others rather than themselves for security.

The nation recovered despite FDR. Our leaders don't save us or condemn us, we do. The writers of history have decided to put FDR on a pedestal because he was a progressive, a socialist, a man who lived by the maxim "do as I say, not as I do" and whose presidency marked the turning point from state power to oppressive federal hegemony.

This centralized planning nanny state perspective appeals to historians and the media because they are, for the most part, liberal leaning national socialists (remember - that is what the Nazis were) who are afraid of the freedom and liberty and requisite responsibility of individualism and self-determination."

Exactly so.]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0500 > Interesting that you would categorize FDR as the worst president in the history of the US.
>
> Yet, US Presidential polls covering many thousands of historians,
> researchers, academics, writers, etc who have spent their entire
> professional lives studying US Presidents and writing about them totally disagree with you..."

American History in academia today is the polemic of the liberal left that adores more government power and wants the original constitution trashed and replaced by one more in line with socialist thinking. Surveys of academia now show a bias so strong that Republicans/conservatives are an endangered species and on college faculties, you have a mix of 'left' and 'far left'. As such, they adore FDR, the man who did more to destroy American liberty than any other President.

ebworthen: "FDR has been similarly mythologized and his transgressions against the Constitution and the rights of the individual ignored by those who look to others rather than themselves for security.

The nation recovered despite FDR. Our leaders don't save us or condemn us, we do. The writers of history have decided to put FDR on a pedestal because he was a progressive, a socialist, a man who lived by the maxim "do as I say, not as I do" and whose presidency marked the turning point from state power to oppressive federal hegemony.

This centralized planning nanny state perspective appeals to historians and the media because they are, for the most part, liberal leaning national socialists (remember - that is what the Nazis were) who are afraid of the freedom and liberty and requisite responsibility of individualism and self-determination."

Exactly so.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169073-policy-lessons-from-the-great-depression?source=feed#comment-739137 739137 "We tried that Sir. That's how we got into this mess. "

Ahem, we haven't allowed pure capitalism in the USA for over a century. FDA, Fed, OSHA, EPA, SocSec, HHS, FDIC, SEC, utilities regs, Medicare, the list goes on. All funded by a system where Government takes more than a third of our GDP and controls (too) much of the rest.

The 'lets regulate' crowd needs to stop living in the past and stop blaming capitalism for the mistakes of a flawed and fallible central government.]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:18 -0500 "We tried that Sir. That's how we got into this mess. "

Ahem, we haven't allowed pure capitalism in the USA for over a century. FDA, Fed, OSHA, EPA, SocSec, HHS, FDIC, SEC, utilities regs, Medicare, the list goes on. All funded by a system where Government takes more than a third of our GDP and controls (too) much of the rest.

The 'lets regulate' crowd needs to stop living in the past and stop blaming capitalism for the mistakes of a flawed and fallible central government.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164590-the-economic-recovery-that-isn-t?source=feed#comment-703106 703106

The first step on the road to long-term recovery is to stop killing jobs with bad Government policies. Will the Obama/Democrat zeal to socialize healthcare careen our nation on a path to inevitable fiscal ruin as the taxes and mandates just kill future jobs?

Now comes crunch time in DC. If this is passed, USA's economic pre-eminence will be history. Save America's economy, Stop ObamaCare!]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:15:46 -0400

The first step on the road to long-term recovery is to stop killing jobs with bad Government policies. Will the Obama/Democrat zeal to socialize healthcare careen our nation on a path to inevitable fiscal ruin as the taxes and mandates just kill future jobs?

Now comes crunch time in DC. If this is passed, USA's economic pre-eminence will be history. Save America's economy, Stop ObamaCare!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164724-sentiment-overview-surprising-increase-in-optimism?source=feed#comment-703099 703099
Now comes crunch time. If this is passed, USA's economic pre-eminence will be history. Save America's economy, Stop ObamaCare.]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:07:56 -0400
Now comes crunch time. If this is passed, USA's economic pre-eminence will be history. Save America's economy, Stop ObamaCare.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164572-this-recession-aint-over?source=feed#comment-703050 703050
You have awesome ideas ... but ... So long as Obama and the Democrat are in charge of Washington DC, their approach will be the opposite of that. They are about to destroy healthcare innovation for the next generation *AND* tee us up for massive new taxes and the destruction of state budgets, all in one fell swoop.

So proposing doing that is a bit like trying to round up virgins in a whorehouse. It might be fun, but it's an exercise unlikely to succeed.]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:52:33 -0400
You have awesome ideas ... but ... So long as Obama and the Democrat are in charge of Washington DC, their approach will be the opposite of that. They are about to destroy healthcare innovation for the next generation *AND* tee us up for massive new taxes and the destruction of state budgets, all in one fell swoop.

So proposing doing that is a bit like trying to round up virgins in a whorehouse. It might be fun, but it's an exercise unlikely to succeed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146648-6-ways-to-short-the-obama-health-plan?source=feed#comment-585135 585135 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:41:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146648-6-ways-to-short-the-obama-health-plan?source=feed#comment-585126 585126
Thanks for voting to destroy what's left of this country, you moron. I would forgive those who by now have realized they made a mistake, but if you are still committed to supporting this socialist charlatan still, it shows you really lack the judgment to be trusted to foresee the market.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:28:33 -0400
Thanks for voting to destroy what's left of this country, you moron. I would forgive those who by now have realized they made a mistake, but if you are still committed to supporting this socialist charlatan still, it shows you really lack the judgment to be trusted to foresee the market.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148184-forget-green-shoots-these-are-the-brown-shoots-turning-black?source=feed#comment-585121 585121
The argument that smoeone cant be a socialist because liberal billionaires supported him is lame. What's retarded is not knowing that there are some very rich people who are very leftist, even communists. George Soros, the billionaire who funded not just Obama but Moveon.org, comes to mind, as does the Lamont family, one family member took on Sen Lieberman in 2006, from the left.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:20:56 -0400
The argument that smoeone cant be a socialist because liberal billionaires supported him is lame. What's retarded is not knowing that there are some very rich people who are very leftist, even communists. George Soros, the billionaire who funded not just Obama but Moveon.org, comes to mind, as does the Lamont family, one family member took on Sen Lieberman in 2006, from the left.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148184-forget-green-shoots-these-are-the-brown-shoots-turning-black?source=feed#comment-585116 585116
More jobs have been lost in 6 months under Obama than under Bush during any period of time. Or that matter, this is the worst jobs performance for any first-6-months-of-a-pr... ever.

"
Endless excuses based on "Bush did it" won't cut it anymore. Leadership is in order. Not more of the same old stuff."

BINGO. If I had an employee who whined that his non-performance was due to the last loser I fired, I'd fire him too. So let's get real and not simplistic here: The US market is underperforming China's stock market -why ? Obama's socialist agenda scare the bejeesus out of the business sector. Cap-and-trade and socialized medicine is whats killing the 'green shoots'.

I seem to recall last year a bogus claim by Obama that his inexperienced self was going to be ready on day one. I seem to recall a promise that the bogus 'stimulus' had to be rush-passed to stop the bleeding, and that it would 'save or create 3 million jobs'. I seem to recall that the Obama administration estimate was a max unemployment of 8% if the stimulus passed. We are at 9.5%, and we will not get under 8% for ... years.

If you make big promises, expect to be called on it when you BLOW IT. Obama lied, Jobs died. America is in a hole, and Obama's plan? Dig DEEPER.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:12:16 -0400
More jobs have been lost in 6 months under Obama than under Bush during any period of time. Or that matter, this is the worst jobs performance for any first-6-months-of-a-pr... ever.

"
Endless excuses based on "Bush did it" won't cut it anymore. Leadership is in order. Not more of the same old stuff."

BINGO. If I had an employee who whined that his non-performance was due to the last loser I fired, I'd fire him too. So let's get real and not simplistic here: The US market is underperforming China's stock market -why ? Obama's socialist agenda scare the bejeesus out of the business sector. Cap-and-trade and socialized medicine is whats killing the 'green shoots'.

I seem to recall last year a bogus claim by Obama that his inexperienced self was going to be ready on day one. I seem to recall a promise that the bogus 'stimulus' had to be rush-passed to stop the bleeding, and that it would 'save or create 3 million jobs'. I seem to recall that the Obama administration estimate was a max unemployment of 8% if the stimulus passed. We are at 9.5%, and we will not get under 8% for ... years.

If you make big promises, expect to be called on it when you BLOW IT. Obama lied, Jobs died. America is in a hole, and Obama's plan? Dig DEEPER.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148184-forget-green-shoots-these-are-the-brown-shoots-turning-black?source=feed#comment-585104 585104
Wrong. What Obama did was say whatever it took to get what he wanted. Thus in January the sky was falling unless we passed the trillion dollar pork barrel spending bill falsely called 'stimulus'. When - surprise, surprise - deficit spending and bailouts of govts programs combined with threats to increase deficits, taxes, regulations and govt control fail to 'stimulate' a brow-beaten private sector, we get nonsense like VP Biden "nobody predicted this" and Obama's arrogant "I wouldnt have done anything differently."

Obama has already blown it. His stimulus is already a failure. What's changed in the last 2 weeks is that the 'green shoots' that signal that failure have become obvious - 3 million lost jobs and counting. That's 6 million jobs deficit compared to what Obama promised. What's also changed is that Obama has dug himself a hole by tying himself to his own fraudulent promises with his bogus claim that the stimulus has 'worked as intended'.

3 million unemployed Americans beg to differ.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:03:09 -0400
Wrong. What Obama did was say whatever it took to get what he wanted. Thus in January the sky was falling unless we passed the trillion dollar pork barrel spending bill falsely called 'stimulus'. When - surprise, surprise - deficit spending and bailouts of govts programs combined with threats to increase deficits, taxes, regulations and govt control fail to 'stimulate' a brow-beaten private sector, we get nonsense like VP Biden "nobody predicted this" and Obama's arrogant "I wouldnt have done anything differently."

Obama has already blown it. His stimulus is already a failure. What's changed in the last 2 weeks is that the 'green shoots' that signal that failure have become obvious - 3 million lost jobs and counting. That's 6 million jobs deficit compared to what Obama promised. What's also changed is that Obama has dug himself a hole by tying himself to his own fraudulent promises with his bogus claim that the stimulus has 'worked as intended'.

3 million unemployed Americans beg to differ.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136736-u-s-economy-does-it-need-more-stimulus?source=feed#comment-498384 498384
... You would find that hard money and free market economics by Konrad Adenauer was repsonsible for Germany's 'miracle from 1945-1970.

www.econlib.org/librar...
"What caused the so-called miracle? The two main factors were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which happened over a period of weeks in 1948. A further factor was the reduction of marginal tax rates later in 1948 and in 1949."
]]> Sun, 10 May 2009 23:10:49 -0400
... You would find that hard money and free market economics by Konrad Adenauer was repsonsible for Germany's 'miracle from 1945-1970.

www.econlib.org/librar...
"What caused the so-called miracle? The two main factors were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which happened over a period of weeks in 1948. A further factor was the reduction of marginal tax rates later in 1948 and in 1949."
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128340-federal-budget-watch-same-old-talking-points-but-the-parties-are-reversed?source=feed#comment-444470 444470
Rahm Emanuel gave it away right after the election, saying that they werent going to 'let this crisis go to waste' meaning, the crisis is their excuse to ram through their entire left-liberal agenda. That's why the 'stimulus' became a phony trillion dollar boondoggle of every pet liberal project imagined in the past decade. It was not stimulus at all, IT WAS A TROJAN HORSE for liberalism.

Multiple opportunities for real private sector stimulus have been taken away - regulatory reform (eg fixing sarbanes-oxley), tax reform/reduction, and market-confidence building. They didnt go that route. They went the grow-the-govt route.

With that mentality in the Obama white house, there is no 'working with Republicans', there is only attempts to brow beat them to accept the toxic assets of bad left-liberal policy. ]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:16:22 -0400
Rahm Emanuel gave it away right after the election, saying that they werent going to 'let this crisis go to waste' meaning, the crisis is their excuse to ram through their entire left-liberal agenda. That's why the 'stimulus' became a phony trillion dollar boondoggle of every pet liberal project imagined in the past decade. It was not stimulus at all, IT WAS A TROJAN HORSE for liberalism.

Multiple opportunities for real private sector stimulus have been taken away - regulatory reform (eg fixing sarbanes-oxley), tax reform/reduction, and market-confidence building. They didnt go that route. They went the grow-the-govt route.

With that mentality in the Obama white house, there is no 'working with Republicans', there is only attempts to brow beat them to accept the toxic assets of bad left-liberal policy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128340-federal-budget-watch-same-old-talking-points-but-the-parties-are-reversed?source=feed#comment-444465 444465
1. Our education system is getting worse due to special interests (teachers unions, NEA) that have a lockhold on the Democrats and prevent real reform. In the past 25 years, we have double per pupil spending but gotten no improvement in outcomes.
The Democrats keep making it worse.
2. "energy efficiency" - the wasteful and inefficient squandering of resources on energy saps our economy - Ethanol subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, regulations that prevent domestic drilling or other energy generation. The Democrats with their drill-nowhere tax-success and subsidize-the-inefficient mentality are making it worse.
3. "control and fairness out of health care" It is unfair that the Democrat are taxing people making under median family wage to subsidize health care for people making over that amount; it is unfair that Democrats added regulations that increase the cost of health insurance and insist on stopping reasonable medical malpractice reform. They are creating the crisis with over-regulation and now intend to harm the 250 million of us who have health insurance in the name of helping those without ... except many of those without health insurance are illegal aliens. If we started enforcing immigration law a lot of these problems would be lessened.

Democrats will make these problems worse not better. These issues are problems because of previous failed and flawed policies of the Democrats. Imagining the further socialization of health care, energy and education will 'fix' anything is a sorry pipedream.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:11:04 -0400
1. Our education system is getting worse due to special interests (teachers unions, NEA) that have a lockhold on the Democrats and prevent real reform. In the past 25 years, we have double per pupil spending but gotten no improvement in outcomes.
The Democrats keep making it worse.
2. "energy efficiency" - the wasteful and inefficient squandering of resources on energy saps our economy - Ethanol subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, regulations that prevent domestic drilling or other energy generation. The Democrats with their drill-nowhere tax-success and subsidize-the-inefficient mentality are making it worse.
3. "control and fairness out of health care" It is unfair that the Democrat are taxing people making under median family wage to subsidize health care for people making over that amount; it is unfair that Democrats added regulations that increase the cost of health insurance and insist on stopping reasonable medical malpractice reform. They are creating the crisis with over-regulation and now intend to harm the 250 million of us who have health insurance in the name of helping those without ... except many of those without health insurance are illegal aliens. If we started enforcing immigration law a lot of these problems would be lessened.

Democrats will make these problems worse not better. These issues are problems because of previous failed and flawed policies of the Democrats. Imagining the further socialization of health care, energy and education will 'fix' anything is a sorry pipedream.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128340-federal-budget-watch-same-old-talking-points-but-the-parties-are-reversed?source=feed#comment-444459 444459
Yes it can. Obama is spending $16 TRILLION in the next 4 years. That is far too much, and it doesnt matter which portion of that $16 trillion is borrowed (at least $4 trillion) and which is taxed (up to $12 trillion), the amounts involved will destroy the US economy, either sooner or later.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:03:55 -0400
Yes it can. Obama is spending $16 TRILLION in the next 4 years. That is far too much, and it doesnt matter which portion of that $16 trillion is borrowed (at least $4 trillion) and which is taxed (up to $12 trillion), the amounts involved will destroy the US economy, either sooner or later.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128340-federal-budget-watch-same-old-talking-points-but-the-parties-are-reversed?source=feed#comment-444458 444458
This Democrat talking point is beyond stupid. Next years deficit is the largest in human history, larger in real terms than any deficit the US has ever run, and the 4 year total deficit is something like $3-4 trillion - the largest ever and over 4 TIMES the level of the prior 4 years.

This is like a 200lb man going on a binge spree, balooning up to 400lbs so he can come back down to 300lbs, and declares that "I am going to lose 100 lbs".]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:01:10 -0400
This Democrat talking point is beyond stupid. Next years deficit is the largest in human history, larger in real terms than any deficit the US has ever run, and the 4 year total deficit is something like $3-4 trillion - the largest ever and over 4 TIMES the level of the prior 4 years.

This is like a 200lb man going on a binge spree, balooning up to 400lbs so he can come back down to 300lbs, and declares that "I am going to lose 100 lbs".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128226-uso-begs-short-position-as-oil-tops-53-50?source=feed#comment-443763 443763 I think so. Consider that some OPEC nations might cheat out of necessity to keep state budgets from imploding.
]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:15:40 -0400 I think so. Consider that some OPEC nations might cheat out of necessity to keep state budgets from imploding.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128271-book-review-getting-off-track-by-john-b-taylor?source=feed#comment-443762 443762
No, one only need show that alternative solutions were available that would have fixed things better. We'll have to read his book to find out if there were better alternatives.

Your standard is too low, its like suggesting a doctor is doing things right so long as the patient doesnt do worse than a placebo ... but even a quack doctor can meet that standard.
]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:08:50 -0400
No, one only need show that alternative solutions were available that would have fixed things better. We'll have to read his book to find out if there were better alternatives.

Your standard is too low, its like suggesting a doctor is doing things right so long as the patient doesnt do worse than a placebo ... but even a quack doctor can meet that standard.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127659-marc-faber-it-will-all-end-in-disaster?source=feed#comment-443373 443373
I hear ya. The news today:

AIG director named to Obama task force
www.freerepublic.com/f...

www.freerepublic.com/f...
bailout benefitting exec (Goldman Sachs) gave the max to Obama's 2010 Senate campaign in Dec.

www.freerepublic.com/f...
Cali Democrats in lege putting friends and family on lege payroll
"At least a dozen political allies, relatives and friends of legislators, including political candidates in need of a salaried landing or launch pad between elections, were on the legislative roster last year at a cost of $754,000."

www.freerepublic.com/f...
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director.

www.freerepublic.com/f...
Another high-ranking official in the Obama administration has had to leave his position, and in this case, one has to wonder how he got the job in the first place. Scott Polakoff, the top bank regulator for the Treasury, has taken a leave of absence after internal audits uncovered his allowance of backdated capital infusions, which could amount to cooking the books for IndyMac and other institutions. But the OTS chief had also been responsible for regulating AIG as well..


...AND SO IT GOES, using the taxpaying wealth-producers funds to help the politically connected.
]]> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:51:28 -0400
I hear ya. The news today:

AIG director named to Obama task force
www.freerepublic.com/f...

www.freerepublic.com/f...
bailout benefitting exec (Goldman Sachs) gave the max to Obama's 2010 Senate campaign in Dec.

www.freerepublic.com/f...
Cali Democrats in lege putting friends and family on lege payroll
"At least a dozen political allies, relatives and friends of legislators, including political candidates in need of a salaried landing or launch pad between elections, were on the legislative roster last year at a cost of $754,000."

www.freerepublic.com/f...
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director.

www.freerepublic.com/f...
Another high-ranking official in the Obama administration has had to leave his position, and in this case, one has to wonder how he got the job in the first place. Scott Polakoff, the top bank regulator for the Treasury, has taken a leave of absence after internal audits uncovered his allowance of backdated capital infusions, which could amount to cooking the books for IndyMac and other institutions. But the OTS chief had also been responsible for regulating AIG as well..


...AND SO IT GOES, using the taxpaying wealth-producers funds to help the politically connected.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127659-marc-faber-it-will-all-end-in-disaster?source=feed#comment-443366 443366 > faire approach to the economy")."

Completely wrong view, and a myth the socialists and Democrats like to spread. Anyone who repeats this myth just shows their ignroance. Hoover raised taxes (increasing high end tax ratesfrom 25% to over 60%), raised tariffs, and ramped up spending. It only made the economy worse.
FDR in 1932 ran on balancing the budget(!!), although he ended up increasing deficits and budgets massively. It too failed economically, but worked politically by creating a Govt-spending-dependent class of voters.

]]> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:37:06 -0400 > faire approach to the economy")."

Completely wrong view, and a myth the socialists and Democrats like to spread. Anyone who repeats this myth just shows their ignroance. Hoover raised taxes (increasing high end tax ratesfrom 25% to over 60%), raised tariffs, and ramped up spending. It only made the economy worse.
FDR in 1932 ran on balancing the budget(!!), although he ended up increasing deficits and budgets massively. It too failed economically, but worked politically by creating a Govt-spending-dependent class of voters.

]]>