Anyway, the new link : stockcreeper.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com

Check this out:

(click to enlarge)

Obama is losing because he's a wealth spreader. Americans want more spending, they want the economy to succeed, and they want access to more credit but the left wants recession, fiscal restraint and crisis. I want more consumer spending. I want stocks to go up. I want more buy all dips.

Meanwhile stocks are surging for a third day in a row in anticipation of a pro-growth Romney victory, in addition to strong economic fundamentals and increased likelihood of more QE.

Question 1 Which individuals deserve credit for the three years (and counting) bull market and economic boom?

Question 2: Which administration deserves credit for killing Bin Laden?

If you read this blog you would know the answers- question 1: Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke; question 2: George W. Bush administration.

Obama is trying to take credit for the work done my his more competent predecessors, or his smarter colleagues like Larry Summers or Tim Geithner. Obama didn't contribute in any meaningful way to the 2009-present economic and stock market boom, and is unjustly stealing credit from Bush and Paulson, like he did over the Bin Laden death. The Obama stimulus failed, Solyndra was a huge embarrassment, the auto bailouts will only appeal to a narrow demographic, obamacare is hanging by a thread, and the gay marriage endorsement didn't sway independents,

I will reach across the aisle and emphatically endorse a Tim Geithner or Larry Summers presidency. Summers is right about women being deficient in aptitude in the high-end and the necessity of increased government spending to fund pro-growth programs like tax cuts, defense, and bank recapitalization. Geithner did pay his taxes, but that didn't stop the radical left from slandering him over a minor oversight. Everyone makes mistakes, but at least these people are competent decision makers, which can't be said for our current president.

Larry Summers is brilliant; Obama is dull. As treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, Larry Summers orchestrated the successful bailout of LTCM; Obama was busy community organizing. Hillary Clinton was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia; Obama was in the aloof Harvard Law review. Now there's growing speculation that Obama was a bad student and got into Harvard not though his merit, but affirmative action.

Like Romney, a vote for Larry Summers would be a vote for modernization, productivity, and free market capitalism. A vote for Obama is vote for regression and attacking the rich.

In late 1999, at a time when President Bill Clinton was politically weakened and distracted by the impeachment attempt, then-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers "led efforts to modernize the financial system ... and insure the viability of the over-the-counter derivatives market," as his official Treasury biographical sketch puts it. "Modernization" refers to Summers' killing of the Glass-Steagall Act (Section 12 U.S. Code, "National Banking"), which had kept commercial banks regulated and "out of the casino" for 65 years. "Insuring the viability of the over-the-counter derivatives market" refers to Summers' blocking any regulation of the destructive speculative riot we now identify by the deadly name of "AIG."

I agree financial instruments play an important role in the economy even if they aren't well understood, or occasionally fail. Let's stop the regulation and instead promote growth.

Obama's polls keep falling. There is a major credibility gap between the public and the administration, mainly because Obama is inept.

One of the upsides of supposed economic weakness is that Americans feel increasingly dour about the economy and stock market, further compounded by a perpetually weak labor market. This is a positive because it not only increases the odds of further fed easing, but presents numerous investment opportunities though the so called 'poverty trade'.

There's two pertinent points:

1. Americans are downgrading their standard of living, but not decreasing their total spending as shown by consistently strong monthly consumer spending data. This means they are shopping at Ross instead of Macy's or Dollar Store instead of Walgreens, but they are buying more cheap junk to offset the lower price.

2. You can profit off this trend by buying stocks that profit off the poor and frugal such as Dollar Tree (DLTR), Ross (ROST), Autozone (AZO), Dollar Thrifty Automotive (DTG), and Sherwin Williams (SHW).

I also NO longer recommend stocks like CMG GOOG UGA PCLN NFLX BIDU or even AAPL. These are too volatile when better alternatives exist like ROST and SHW. I would rather make 30% in a strong market and lose only 10% in a weak market than make 40% in a strong market and lose 25% in a weak market.

Here's the takeaway: Designate 1/2 your trading account to the aforementioned stocks and the other 50% to TLT.

The last time I recommended TLT it was on May 14th; it has surged seven percent since then versus a four percent decline for the broad indexes for a total outperformance of eleven percent.

TLT is still a huge buy because there is zero likelihood of a resolution to the European debt problems and the world is still awash with infinite liquidity. It's like Dumb & Dumber over in Europe now. No one knows anything. No one knows how to fix anything. There is no grand bargain, no collation, nothing. It's just gonna keep muddling along, providing buoyancy for risk-off assets like treasuries. Even if there is a compromise, the gains will be short lived because its such a hopeless mess over there.

Back in America it's like Beavus and Butthead with Obama apparently unable to give a speech without inadvertently parodying the TV show with his constant um's and ah's. Yes, America, you elected a butthead for president. Don't you feel proud?

seekingalpha.com/instablog/926530-stock_...

Obama's intrade numbers keep plunging. Yet again, I reported this story weeks ago and only recently has businessinsider picked up on it.

seekingalpha.com/instablog/926530-stock_...

I also wrote that the Bain attack ads would fail (which they have) and that the job situation would worsen (which it has).

Despite being a Romney and Bain supporter I will concede that if he wins he will be powerless to reverse the Anemic labor market, pain at the pump, record debt, or falling home prices. A Romney presidency will be a continuation of Bush's policies, which will be bullish for equities but won't do anything to remedy the pervasive pessimism about the economy or the attainability of American dream. Don't expect Romney's business experience to create very many jobs.

In the final months of the 2008 campaign the media over-hyped the stock market collapse to get Obama into office. Now the media is trying to turn JPM and Facebook into the next Lehman so Obama can win on economic issues. Obama's 'economic plan' is to soak the rich, impose choking regulation on businesses and Wall St., and fritter tax payer dollars on useless job creation programs. This is not an economic plan.

Romney has business experience and is unemployed; Obama is a community organizer, career politician, and scholar. This not only makes Romney more relatable to average voters, but more qualified. Obama wants to make the one percent pay their fair share, which is too much money. Boehner is right. Why should the one percent who are the most productive members of society pay higher taxes for economically unproductive social safety nets? Let's cut the waste, but leave the tax cuts and defense spending unchanged.

Sometimes cognitive dissonance is justified it's in the best interests of the economy and national security. It's better to hold two contrasting views if one of them is correct than to hold the wrong ones. Sometimes we need more exotic financial instruments because they help the economy in some way, and if they fail the taxpayer should feel obliged to bail it out, out of a sense of selflessness to the good of the economy. Mortgages on supposedly dubious terms is part of the American dream of home ownership; it's the personal responsibility of the borrower to read the fine print. Too big to fail isn't so bad, if we have the support structure to prop it up should the unthinkable happen. Bailouts help the free market function more smoothly.

Obama is alienating the Latino vote by failing to implement immigration reform or a pathway to citizenship, through his attacks on the Catholic church, the contraception mandates, gay marriage endorsement and a general lack of hard working values. Populism sounds good on paper by pitting the haves against the have-nots, but this doesn't work because you can't talk down to the American people; instead you have to dangle the carrot of the American Dream to win the swing state votes. Voters want to think they can be rich, if they work hard enough. A Quinnipiac University poll out this week found Mitt Romney with a 6-point lead over President Obama in Florida, meaning there is still hope for Romney to win swing states by converting minorities on social issues. Obama has hopelessly lost the hard working white vote; but he still retains the slacker vote, the freeloader vote, and the single women vote. Too bad for Obama these groups don't have reliable turnout numbers on election night.

Admittedly, if Romney or McCain had won in 2008 we would still be complaining about the same stuff we are now like pain at the pump, debt and the weak housing & labor market. A Romney presidency won't make much of a dent in the aforementioned problems, but it will be bullish for stocks and & economy which is why I endorse him. Congress will be more accommodative if Romney wins, meaning uncontested spending for pro-growth things like defense, homeland security and tax cuts and, best of all, no more debt ceiling standoffs.

Bernanke or Geithner would make a better president than Obama. They deserve credit for the present economic & stock market boom, not Obama. Obama's specialty is taking credit for the work done by more competent people.

One of biggest mistakes of the administration is using Keynesian policy to try to forcefully reverse autonomous structural shifts in the labor market. The greater trend towards automation and globalization and

ultimately a shrinking , but a more productive and useful labor force,

is irrevocable.

In a recent column Robert Reich is still bemoaning inequality. The good news: growth will always supersede fairness. It's better to have a dynamic, competitive economy with fewer jobs than a bloated, ineffective one that resembles a DMV office.

The left insists that without more equality economic growth will stagnate. To the contrary the economy is not stagnating. US GDP growth has been positive since Q1 2009 and the economy is growing faster than any country in Europe. Increasing inequality is a byproduct of a successful economy and not a cause for concern, but is to be embraced.

Facebook is under assault by the litigious left over failure to disclose certain statement during the roadshow. It's laughable to believe that having that extra morsel of information would have affected the IPO when retail investors were blindly buying into the stock. Nasdaq is also being sued because of trading errors that somehow prevented investors from knowing when bought or sold. I hope the next time I lose money I can complain to the exchange that somehow I couldn't see my order. Instead of the dog ate my homework, I did my homework and the answers vanished! How lame does that sound. Nervermind that too much Facebook stock was issued or that the S&P 500 had its worst week since August 2011. If Facebook deserved to close at $50 it would have done so, errors not withstanding.

The Ron Paul revolution was DOA but that didn't stop liberals and libertarians from writing pro Ron Paul articles on sites like Business Insider while scorning real conservatives such as Romney or Santorum. These supposed delegates are like Loch Ness Monster sightings; the true believers think it's real in defiance of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The world is awash with so much liquidity that TLT is flat today even as stocks surge. The slightest hiccup in Europe will provoke a kneejerk flight to safety treasury rally, but on the other hand, booming BRIC economies are producing large surpluses which is helping to keep rates low; hence TLT rises in bullish and bearish macro economic conditions.

Romney embodies pro-growth patriotic values just as TLT is a proxy for American exceptionalism regarding it unshakable reserve currency status. The left predicted that USA debt rating downgrade would pummel treasuries and that GOP was alienating women voters. The opposite has happened; Romney's polls have surged among women and treasuries keep rallying.

The left is unloading their full arsenal against Romney with no success, including:

War on Women? dud

Manufactured outrage contraception? dud

Anti-Bain attack ads? dud

24-7 scorn directed at JP Morgan by the liberal media? dud

I wonder if the liberal media is trying to invoke another Lehman by spreading misinformation and fear about JPM to drive its stock price lower and make Obama look like the good guy? Probably.

Now the media is trying to turn Facebook into the next JPM. The left loves failure and crisis because the they win voters through fear and class warfare, not optimism. Stocks crash. People get scared. Blame the 1%. Promise retribution against the 1%. Obama wins.

How about the ad narrated by Bill Clinton that implied that Romney, if president, would not have launched the raid on Bin Laden? It was a dud. You can't pretend to be tough on terror when your name rhymes with Osama, sorry.

Romney effortlessly deflected those attacks, just like during the primaries. In most instances, simply ignoring the ads without issuing a rebuttal was sufficient because many of these ads actually backfired, especially among Catholics and swing voters.

Maybe Obama is suffering from Oxygen deprivation? Cyanosis can cause purple lips and brain cells dying impairs speech resulting in a long pauses between words excess um's and ah's from a derailed train of thought.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

Doug Kass like Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Paul Kugman is of those people that you can tell is a loser based on their appearance. On May 9th, 2012 the wispy Doug Kass wrote that shorting bonds might actually be the "trade of the decade" Whoops. It bears repeating: a lib and his money are soon parted.