Fiscal Cliff: Let's Call Their Bluff [View article]
Joseph,
Why do those arguing against big govt almost always want to continue to increase military spending? It can't be a case of giving the people what they want - 70% of us are tired of all the war mongering. We don't want to police the world. The world does not want us to police it. And we need to cut somewhere. . . The number of people that benefit from our constant warfare is very small and it certainly isn't the poor or middle class.
If spending more than the next 17 counties and over 40 years of nearly continuous distant foreign warfare isn't enough bleed out of $$$$$, what is?
Given either presidential candidate in office, going over the "fiscal cliff" may be the only possible way to cut "Dept of Offence" spending.
I'll leave you with two quotes that stand the test of time:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." Thomas Jefferson
"When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will fall short." - Sun Tzu
James Independent - Fiscal Conservative, Social Moderate
Fiscal Cliff: Let's Call Their Bluff [View article]
Very few people want to even consider cutting the "defense" budget. Even fewer seem to understand what the word "defense" means. As a fiscal conservative, this is the FIRST place we should look - from Vietnam to Iraq, the cost of our endless militarism is high and not just measured in dollars. We often go to war based on misplaced ideas "we are going to establish a western style democracy in country X" or very poor data "weapons of mass destruction". The rhetoric seems to almost always be focused on social programs and almost never on our state of near continual distant foreign warfare. Thanks for writing this article; clearly it has ruffled some feathers. We Americans do not want to admit how violent a culture we are for a developed nation; both domestically and abroad.
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
Logic?
Taxing the rich more won't, by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Closing loop holes, won't by itself get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting military spending by X% (we already spend more than the next 17 countries combined and have been in a nearly continuous state of war for 4 decades) won't by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Defunding PBS to zero, will only save about what we spend in 5 hours on distant foreign warefar and clearly won't get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting entitlements by X% won't, by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting the benefits of those in "poly ticks" to the same as the rest of us won't get us there. So we shouldn't consider it either. . .
I could go on. . .
Look how easy it is to point the finger at someone else.
If we keep "thinking" like this and kicking the can down the road, WE WONT EVER GET THERE. Maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with the logic that cutting or taxing any one thing or won't be enough so we shouldn't bother. . .
Peering Over The Fiscal Cliff: Our Game Plan For Coca-Cola Investors [View article]
Thanks for the article. I agree that we have a better than 50% chance of going over the cliff. I also think it is politically impossible to cut military spending, a huge cost almost no one seems to want to talk about, w/o going over the cliff. One candidate wanted to throw an additional 2 billion at war mongering. . . so lets not just talk about entitlements.
If we go over the cliff, does that mean that dividend taxes will increase? I thought it was just personal income taxes. Or is that potential increase something on the table now for a negotiated agreement to avoid the cliff? I can't see the Republicans ever wanting to tax capital gains and dividends the same as actual work. . . although Romney did want to put a cap on loopholes which could potentially help restore a level playing field.
Peering Over The Fiscal Cliff: Our Game Plan For Coca-Cola Investors [View article]
We could do without the 4 decades of nearly continuous distant foreign warfare. . . We don't really need to outspend the next 17 countries combined. Nor do we need these debt funded wars "sold" to us based on "weapons of mass destruction" and our track record at establishing "western style democracies".
Both parties, indeed are to blame. It seems impossible to even talk about cutting spending to the military industrial complex despite the fact that most Americans, on both "sides", are tired of the warmongering and debt.
Why Analysts Missed The Apple Correction [View article]
Well written objective article. You now have a new follower. I guess I am a retail investor, but I'm also a scientist, and I've noticed that most analysts are amazingly good at predicting what already happened. This talent seems useful for generating sales but for me it is only marginally helpful as a contrarily indicator. As a group, these sell side professionals hit well below the batting average. If you keep writing like this, you will piss off your sell side peers and receive some negative push back in the comments section. You will also get the attention of people like me that prefer to make their own decisions independent of the "spin". I wish there were more like you here. Thanks.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Yes John, they do. And I'm all for funding those entitlements for those that have been asked to give so much. But perhaps if we didn't send them to the other side of the world for 9 years to chase weapons of mass destruction and/or other futile tasks like trying to set up a western style democracy in the middle east by taking over with force, we might not have sent our sons and daughters into harms way for questionable results. I do consider the cost of these entitlements as water under the bridge - we as a society owe them for what we have asked them to do. I'm suggesting though, that in the future, we stop this pattern of nearly continuous distant foreign warfare so we don't ask so much of our military (unless an allie is physically invaded) and we don't continue to have these costs as business as usual.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Agreed. In multiparty systems the majority party rarely has a 50% or better majority and thus they are forces to work with one or more of the minority parties. As there are usually several minority parties, the system supports compromise much better than our system.
As for not letting all citizens vote, I can't imagine anything more un-American. Didn't Hitler do something along those lines?
As for defending the wealthy, the "might makes right argument" is getting old. Many have offshore bank accounts and pay much lower tax rates than I do. Also, I can assure you that it was not to poor that defrauded 1 in 10 home owners out of their homes or the poor that benefited from debt funded "weapons of mass destruction" warmongering. Y'all usually like to talk about accountability - so lets have some for these Banksters and warmongers. Surely 100000 dead chasing weapons of mass destruction and defraduing the middle class out of their homes deserves some jail time for someone somewhere? Did I hear correctly that your guy only pays 14% taxes, wants to cut the deficit yet wants to spend ANOTHER 2 billion on warmongering? I guess spending more than the next 17 countries combined and being in a state of nearly continuous warfare for 40 years isn't enough???
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
My point is that these conversations inevitably focus on entitlements and almost never, ever, even consider military spending. For example, defunding PBS was given about as much debate time yet that cutting that expense down to 100% to ZERO saves us about as much as not warmongering for 6 hours. I'm not saying that we shouldn't cut PBS or that every little bit does not matter. I'm saying that we have this huge military expense, that we stick our noses in other countries business all over the world, and that in most cases the locals view us as foreign invaders. On top of that, most Americans do not want to be at war unless an alie is physically invaded. The Return on Investment for NPR, women's health, education, roads, bridges, social security, etc is all things that have a value. The return on investment for warmongering seems to be more war. Sure we should maintain military superiority but do we really need to out spend the next 17 countries combined.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
I hear a lot about entitlements - even this article mentions them. What we all continue to ignore, except for Ron Paul, is the pattern of debt funded distant foreign warfare. From Vietnam to Iraq we continue to spend more on warmongering than the next 17 countries combined. The Return on Investment is poor, the reasons we go to war are often lies. Americans die. Why is it that the talk is always about entitlements and never about this huge, wasteful and unproductive expense? The world doesn't want us policing it and we Americans on both sides don't want all these damn expensive and often pointless wars. Going over the fiscal cliff may be the only political way, short of beheading those in poly-ticks, that we can actually cut military spending.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Some good ideas. . . but keep in mind that much of the middle class does not have savings, some recently lost their homes so ad a group they don't have a ton of div and capital gain INCOME like someone such as, say, Romney. Also, as you move up tiers, say from 250k to 500k you substantially shrink the % of people that are affected. . . Still, I'd take it as it is a compromise. But I'm not counting on the Rep to do anything other than say "no" or the Dems, who were just elected, to cave in. . . Also, I hear a lot about entitlements - this article mentions them. . . What about debt funded distant foreign warfare? From Vietnam to Iraq, we have been sending sons and daughters to die far from home for over four decades. We spend more on warmongering than the next 17 countries combined? Why is it that the talk is always about entitlements and never about this huge, wasteful and unproductive (how many democracies have we set up in the last 4 decades? How often have the reasons we go to war been lies) expense?
My Must-Own 17% Dividend Yield Equity [View article]
If nothing else I'm getting an education about a wider world. I had to look up "crack spreads" (http://bit.ly/RvkxLI) - no drugs were involved. And also this from the SEC (http://bit.ly/WD8kBm) so I have some vague idea what the buzz is all about.
This one isn't for me right now. If they are more efficient than their competitors, I would expect future predicted $$$ to trend higher, not lower. Maybe in time they will and I'll take another look? And I don't like investing in new stuff, except, shorting over hyped stuff I do somewhat understand, like CRM. Also, self made projections w/o a track record worry me - and yes, that worry may cause me to miss a few opportunities.
I do think Todd mentioned the risk very clearly in his article and followup comments. This is a one trick pony, if that trick is really good, it could go way up.
My Must-Own 17% Dividend Yield Equity [View article]
Thanks for replying.
I do understand that this company is small and has all its eggs, more or less, in one basket. I trade basic options, play casual poker and am married; so I understand the basics of risk.
Nevertheless, I'm still staring at 4 data points that look like they would make a damn nice linear regression. "$92.7m, $73.3m, $57.1m and $22.8m . . . On top of that, lets just say I don't have a lot of trust in most "experts" in the industry and that has served me well. This is setting off my "pump and dump" Spidey senses.
We are still looking at a more or less consistent 20m drop in revenue each period (at least they are honest) with the 5th (extrapolated) period at or near 0 and all the rest increasingly negative. I'm certain I could offer the same "returns" and retire quite nicely should anyone care to send a large check. . .
Or it could also be that I'm not understanding something correctly. Or that those 4 data points randomly happen to be declining $20m per period in a near linear manner. . . I don't know, but so far this one isn't a bet I'd be willing to take.
James
PS: Correlation (time vs $) : -0.9850 That's pretty damn tight. . . and also negative. While causation can not be assigned I wouldn't risk MY money on this w/o new information.
Kiss Goodbye To The Hidden Risk Of Stock Picking [View article]
Fiscal Cliff: Let's Call Their Bluff [View article]
Why do those arguing against big govt almost always want to continue to increase military spending? It can't be a case of giving the people what they want - 70% of us are tired of all the war mongering. We don't want to police the world. The world does not want us to police it. And we need to cut somewhere. . . The number of people that benefit from our constant warfare is very small and it certainly isn't the poor or middle class.
If spending more than the next 17 counties and over 40 years of nearly continuous distant foreign warfare isn't enough bleed out of $$$$$, what is?
Given either presidential candidate in office, going over the "fiscal cliff" may be the only possible way to cut "Dept of Offence" spending.
I'll leave you with two quotes that stand the test of time:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." Thomas Jefferson
"When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will fall short." - Sun Tzu
James
Independent - Fiscal Conservative, Social Moderate
Fiscal Cliff: Let's Call Their Bluff [View article]
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
Taxing the rich more won't, by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Closing loop holes, won't by itself get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting military spending by X% (we already spend more than the next 17 countries combined and have been in a nearly continuous state of war for 4 decades) won't by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Defunding PBS to zero, will only save about what we spend in 5 hours on distant foreign warefar and clearly won't get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting entitlements by X% won't, by itself, get us there. So we shouldn't consider it.
Cutting the benefits of those in "poly ticks" to the same as the rest of us won't get us there. So we shouldn't consider it either. . .
I could go on. . .
Look how easy it is to point the finger at someone else.
If we keep "thinking" like this and kicking the can down the road, WE WONT EVER GET THERE. Maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with the logic that cutting or taxing any one thing or won't be enough so we shouldn't bother. . .
Peering Over The Fiscal Cliff: Our Game Plan For Coca-Cola Investors [View article]
If we go over the cliff, does that mean that dividend taxes will increase? I thought it was just personal income taxes. Or is that potential increase something on the table now for a negotiated agreement to avoid the cliff? I can't see the Republicans ever wanting to tax capital gains and dividends the same as actual work. . . although Romney did want to put a cap on loopholes which could potentially help restore a level playing field.
What a mess.
Peering Over The Fiscal Cliff: Our Game Plan For Coca-Cola Investors [View article]
Both parties, indeed are to blame. It seems impossible to even talk about cutting spending to the military industrial complex despite the fact that most Americans, on both "sides", are tired of the warmongering and debt.
Why Analysts Missed The Apple Correction [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
As for not letting all citizens vote, I can't imagine anything more un-American. Didn't Hitler do something along those lines?
As for defending the wealthy, the "might makes right argument" is getting old. Many have offshore bank accounts and pay much lower tax rates than I do. Also, I can assure you that it was not to poor that defrauded 1 in 10 home owners out of their homes or the poor that benefited from debt funded "weapons of mass destruction" warmongering. Y'all usually like to talk about accountability - so lets have some for these Banksters and warmongers. Surely 100000 dead chasing weapons of mass destruction and defraduing the middle class out of their homes deserves some jail time for someone somewhere? Did I hear correctly that your guy only pays 14% taxes, wants to cut the deficit yet wants to spend ANOTHER 2 billion on warmongering? I guess spending more than the next 17 countries combined and being in a state of nearly continuous warfare for 40 years isn't enough???
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
My Must-Own 17% Dividend Yield Equity [View article]
This one isn't for me right now. If they are more efficient than their competitors, I would expect future predicted $$$ to trend higher, not lower. Maybe in time they will and I'll take another look? And I don't like investing in new stuff, except, shorting over hyped stuff I do somewhat understand, like CRM. Also, self made projections w/o a track record worry me - and yes, that worry may cause me to miss a few opportunities.
I do think Todd mentioned the risk very clearly in his article and followup comments. This is a one trick pony, if that trick is really good, it could go way up.
My Must-Own 17% Dividend Yield Equity [View article]
I do understand that this company is small and has all its eggs, more or less, in one basket. I trade basic options, play casual poker and am married; so I understand the basics of risk.
Nevertheless, I'm still staring at 4 data points that look like they would make a damn nice linear regression. "$92.7m, $73.3m, $57.1m and $22.8m . . . On top of that, lets just say I don't have a lot of trust in most "experts" in the industry and that has served me well. This is setting off my "pump and dump" Spidey senses.
We are still looking at a more or less consistent 20m drop in revenue each period (at least they are honest) with the 5th (extrapolated) period at or near 0 and all the rest increasingly negative. I'm certain I could offer the same "returns" and retire quite nicely should anyone care to send a large check. . .
Or it could also be that I'm not understanding something correctly. Or that those 4 data points randomly happen to be declining $20m per period in a near linear manner. . . I don't know, but so far this one isn't a bet I'd be willing to take.
James
PS: Correlation (time vs $) : -0.9850 That's pretty damn tight. . . and also negative. While causation can not be assigned I wouldn't risk MY money on this w/o new information.
Fracking, Climate Change And What Gets Lost In The Shuffle [View article]