I'm ready for someone to poop or get off the pot! We don't need socialism, we need capitalism! We need smaller government and someone whether they are black white, pinstriped or polkadotted, doesn't really matter to me as long as they have the American people's best interest at heart. We need a government who doesn't mind telling the truth no matter what and who will use a lot more common sense than what this country is used to. " And that's all I have to say about that." (Forrest Gump).
I don't think anyone hates Obama anymore than any other President. It's just easier now, with the Internet, to let the world know what you think about someone or something.
I truly don't think that Barack Obama is criticized for race because that has nothing to do with his politics. His problem is that he can speak amazing, but can't back the majority of what he says.
Having read the comments, and some of the character attacks, many unfounded. I find it hard to believe these are Christian values. You can disagree with anyone in a civil manner. Why the descriptive nasty adjectives describing our President. Yes, our President, you might not like him, his policies, or just him, but he's still our President. I'm not saying you have to agree with him or even like him, but comments should be kept civil. Just my opinion.
OAW, you're beginning to sound like someone I get the impression you're not - a person who can't stand the heat so should stay out of the kitchen.
Why should we remain "civil" about a man who's obviously the most un-American and worst president we've ever had? Shall I go back and bring up some of the nasty, horrible things said about Bush or Reagan?
I respect the office but in no way respect the person currently holding that office. I consider him an un-American Socialist who wants nothing more than to bring this great country to its knees and change it into something totally different from what our founding fathers created. Because of that, Barack Hussein Obama gets nothing but my complete and utter disdain.
Gotta laugh, can't stand the heat? I have enough sense not to attempt to carry on a conversation with a die heart Republican. Your facts of taxes being raised is incorrect, they were lowered by President Obama, as are many of your other references incorrect. President Reagan raised taxes and had more recess appointment then any other President. President Reagan with his deregulations started us on this failed economy. And yes, I'll add President Clinton with NAFTA and all the other Presidents until now, contributed to making the mess we're in now. So all I can offer is you believe whatever you choose and I will do the same, as I choose not to get into a shooting match over obvious disagreements. I wish you well.
"you're beginning to sound like someone I get the impression you're not..."
Reread what I said, OAW. I get the impression you're NOT that type of person but to complain about things being said about Obama is useless with me after seeing what your side has said about Bush and Reagan.
Reagan's recess appointments were when Congress was actually in recess. Obama's were not and unconstitutional, something Obama has no problem with as he hates the Constitution and doesn't believe in it.
I'll agree that Reagan raised taxes but not to the point of trying to choke the economy and the American people. Obama wants every last dime and, since I worked for it, I want to keep it.
As for the mess we're in, yes, they've all had a part in creating it, but Obama is now taking advantage of it and using it to destroy the country.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You like Obama and, simply put, I think he's a traitor.
I respectfully wish you well as well, OAW.
"I'll agree that Reagan raised taxes but not to the point of trying to choke the economy and the American people."
Okay, on that we agree....
"Obama wants every last dime"
Okay, let me ask you: on what facts you base that conclusion? On the extensions of the Bush-era tax breaks that Obama signed into law? On the extension of the payroll-tax holiday? Can you cite one example of a tax hike, or the creation of a new tax, since Obama took office?
"Obama ... hates the Constitution and doesn't believe in it."
No more so than any other sitting president. Comparatively speaking, W. lit the Constitution on fire and tap danced on the ashes. Heck, even Tom Jefferson usurped a power not mentioned in the Constitution when he paid Napoleon for Louisiana (something Napoleon didn't even really have the right to sell if you ask the people who lived there).
"Obama is now taking advantage of it and using it to destroy the country."
Oh, come now. You seriously think the president is deliberately trying to destroy the United States?
Disagree with his policies, fine. I disagree with many of them too. I disagreed with W with great vigor. His policies did more to weaken the United States (economically, militarily, socially, you name it) than any other president I can think of. But was he intentionally trying to bring the nation to its knees? A partisan scoundrel or a conspiracy theorist would say yes. A responsible citizen would say, "No, he probably really thought he was doing the right thing. He was wrong, but his intentions were honest."
Obama isn't trying to "destroy" America. He's trying to improve it. You disagree that his changes would be improvements, but unless I'm terribly mistaken, you still own all the stuff you used to own before he was elected, nobody has come to take your guns away, your taxes have stayed low or gotten even lower, and in spite of all this, no terrorists have blown you up.
Come on, Jeff, we both know Obama wants to tax every last dime from the rich. Not that I'm rich but it does effect me in that those taxes are passed down to me in higher prices for goods and services.
Yes, I think Obama is trying to destroy this country as it was founded. Do we need to make some changes? Yes. But we don't need to change to Socialism as Obama is trying to do with things like Obamacare.
I am neither a partisan scoundrel or a conspiracy theorist and Obama wouldn't know the "right" thing if it slapped him across the face. He's a narcissistic dictator-wannabe that only wants to do things his way. IMHO, his way IS NOT the right way.
You may believe in the Socialist Utopia BS Obama is peddling. Respectfully, I don't and, yes, I do think he's the worst president we've ever had.
"Come on, Jeff, we both know Obama wants to tax every last dime from the rich."
So, you don't have any facts to support this conclusion, then? "Everybody knows" is all you've got? Okay.
"yes, I do think he's the worst president we've ever had."
Worse than, say, Warren G. Harding? But I'm quibbling. This is an opinion I disagree with, but it's one I can respect.
"Yes, I think Obama is trying to destroy this country as it was founded."
Is un-helpful, partisan tripe.
You may not see the distinction between "Obama's misguided policies will end up destroying the USA" and "Obama is trying to destroy the USA with his misguided policies," but the distinction is an important one in political discourse. One assumes that your opponent is a person of goodwill with whom you disagree, and with whom you might eventually be able to come to a compromise.
The other assumes that your opponent is the enemy, that he hates everything you stand for, that there's no point in discussion, and, if you follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, that your opponent is guilty of treason and must be punished.
It's just not healthy, not of individuals, and definitely not for the country.
So, you don't have any facts to support this conclusion, then? "Everybody knows" is all you've got? Okay.
Drawing clear battle lines for next year’s elections, a combative President Barack Obama on Monday demanded that the richest Americans pay higher taxes to help cut soaring U.S. deficits by more than $3 trillion. He promised to veto any effort by congressional Republican to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly without raising taxes as well.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/5261 … t.html.csp
Worse than, say, Warren G. Harding? But I'm quibbling. This is an opinion I disagree with, but it's one I can respect.
Okay, the worst president in my lifetime and I've lived through Carter and Nixon.
Now, how about if I put it this way: I think Obama is willfully doing all he can to usurp the Constitution and turn this country into a Socialist state.
I understand there are things you like and dislike about Obama. You may have voted for him. That's your business and I respect that as I do you.
That being said, I hope you'll understand I see no redeeming qualities in Obama's policies or his political beliefs. He does seem to be a good husband and father. Other than that, I simply don't like the man as he stands for something totally different than I. I can't respect a man who I believe doesn't respect his country, its Constitution, or its people.
"a combative President Barack Obama on Monday demanded that the richest Americans pay higher taxes to help cut soaring U.S. deficits by more than $3 trillion. He promised to veto any effort by congressional Republican to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly without raising taxes as well."
This evidence supports the conclusion that Obama supports a progressive tax structure.
It does not support the conclusion that Obama wants to tax every last dime from the rich.
You can argue that a flat tax is better than a progressive one, and that's a valuable discussion to have. But to take his stated support for a more progressive tax structure to "He wants to take away all of our money!!!zomg1!!eleven!" just sounds hysterical.
Also, check out his previous statements of support for restoring taxes to what they were before W, and his subsequent actions. In short, when it comes to Obama's promise to veto spending cuts that don't also include a tax hike, I'll believe it when I see it.
"Now, how about if I put it this way: I think Obama is willfully doing all he can to usurp the Constitution and turn this country into a Socialist state."
Sorry, mate, but it still sounds like paranoid ranting.
Perhaps if you explained which of his policies will lead us into this socialist dystopia you're warning of, and why you think they'll lead us there, it'd sound less ranty and more like a concerned citizen of goodwill?
For one, ObamaCare.
http://www.galen.org/component,8/action … 0/type,33/
Obama's usurping of the Constitution with so called recess appointments when the Senate was still in session.
His usurping of the Constitution on Illegal Immigration.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=N … p;id=24343
Obama care is fine.
Unless he made a recess appointment during the 30 seconds that the Senate was in session, then he didn't make a recess appointment when the Senate was in session.
No foolin': the Senate came to order for a total of 30 seconds.
So, if that appointment was made during that half-minute pro-forma session, then you have a point. If not, nope.
Illegal immigration...you might have a point there.
But I gotta admit, I'm surprised you didn't call him out for signing the NDAA or for authorizing the extrajudicial execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen.
I figured you didn't agree with NDAA any more than I do. Am I right?
As authorizing the extrajudicial execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, didn't he give up his citizenship when he became a member of al Quada? If you became a member of a terrorist group that had attacked our country on 9-11, wouldn't you figure you were something of a target from that point on?
Don't get me wrong. I understand where you're coming from but, if you're going to sleep with dogs, you better expect to get fleas.
I figured you didn't agree with NDAA any more than I do. Am I right?
Yeah, but that doesn't make it any less bad, or more constitutional. Of course, we have to also blame Congress for it, but Obama could have vetoed it, even if the veto would have been merely symbolic.
"As authorizing the extrajudicial execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, didn't he give up his citizenship when he became a member of al Quada?"
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Tim McVey got a trial, didn't he?
If Tim had fled to Canada or Mexico or someplace like that, would it have been okay to send a CIA operative to shoot him, or would we have had to extradite him?
Do the members of the KKK renounce their citizenship? What about the members of the Communist party? (The real ones, I mean. Cos there are actual Communists in the US, and they aren't the ones the Right are freaking out about.....) Or do you have to hate America from overseas to lose your citizenship?
We can't go around stripping people's citizenship (as a new bill in congress proposes that we should) or else we're no better than a totalitarian state. It may surprise you to know that the Soviet constitution included freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The difference is that their courts didn't uphold those rights, and ours (usually) do.
You get my vote again for indeed being wise, oldandwise!
Longhunter hates Obama because Obama represents change—a change that's a threat to the kind of ignorance that keeps the middle class distracted with BS, while the greedy weasels get their corporate welfare via a corrupt electoral system as they relentlessly pick our pockets.
Educate yourself America and behold the truth about their scam . . .
I hate no one. Not even the likes of you, Wizzer, for whom I only have pity.
Change for the better is one thing. A change to Socialism as Obama and you want is not a change for the better. You may, and I'm sure you will, label that what you want but it's not for the better.
And the only relentless pocket-picking being done is being done by the corrupt and over-taxing Obama Administration.
Now here is an interesting little gem.
Which president is credited with the law that gives the first lady a budget and staff? The answer may surprise you.
Even though the first lady of the United States (FLOTUS) isn't a salaried position, she is given a budget to carry out her work. But she didn't always have a budget to work with: Until the 20th century, the president and first lady paid for entertaining costs themselves [source: Watson]. If the first lady needed funds for an event or required the assistance of a secretary, she had to suffice with small sums rationed from the federal budget and temporary aides sent from other departments around Washington. Some first ladies even asked their family members and the wives of other White House officials to lend a hand during the "social season" that lasted from November to April [source: National First Ladies Library].
And the winner is....
But all that changed on Nov. 2, 1978, when President Jimmy Carter approved public law 95-570, which provided for the first lady's budget and staff [source: The American Presidency Project].
http://history.howstuffworks.com/americ … -lady2.htm
When you encounter folks who can only see the world in black and white, as either/or, or my-way-or-the-highway—as Longhunter and his merry band of NeoCons do—you shouldn't expect them to see the distinctions inherent in colors or grays.
It's like expecting someone without eyes to see the rings of Saturn through a telescope pointing towards the ground.
Nevertheless, Jeff, you have a first class analytical mind and I complement you on the clarity of your thinking and communication!
People don't hate Obama, they just hate the machine behind him if not the corporations that's the Fed!
People do not hate Obama.
They do not like his Marxist ideology, nor do they like his racist anti-Americanism. And America is fast recognizing that he is the embodyment of the Democrat left... Anti-American Marxist Commie lovers.
For an interesting piece about this problem, check out this open letter to those who hate Obama more than they love America.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/0 … ve-America
Great find, Stump.
This says it perfectly.
Going to make some popcorn. When I come back I expect the "I'm not hatist! Stop calling me hatist! My views on Obama/gays/abortion/war/immigration/taxes/Social Security/class warfar/WallStreet/Israel/Iran/China, etc. etc., etc. have nothing to do with hate!" chorus to be in full swing.
I think Sasha and Malia are cute, and no one can say anything bad about the Obama kids. Actually, I think it even rattles conservatives because the Obamas do have a good family unit, and strong family values, which is something the right claims to have a monopoly on. The Washington Times was trying to make it sound as if Obama was neglecting his duty by having dinner with his wife every night, but during the Bush years they would have loved to hear about a Republican president doing that.
Although I wish Obama had not given into the Republicans on many issues, I am still going to vote for him. Who on the Republican side has anything of value to say, anyway? I like Ron Paul's ideas of non-interventionism, but I disagree with him on cutting social safety nets - so I could never vote for him.
People give Michelle way too hard of a time just for promoting an initiative for kids to eat healthy. People were never up in arms when Nancy Reagan told kids not to take drugs. People say the undue criticism of the Obamas has nothing to do with race, but truly, it is hard to believe that is 100% of the case. Michelle has been criticizes more than most first ladies, except for Hillary Clinton, who was chastised for being too involved in her husband's administration.
As long as all you right wingers keep ignoring reality and spouting bankrupt Republican values you are recruiting people for the left. You sound so silly no one can take you seriously. Mr. Obama will be re elected and continue working to repair Republican damage and you boys can hate, form militias and march around in the woods.
You continue to harbor delusions of grandeur, Longhunter. Nothing you say is of concern or interest to me—but I wish you well, nonetheless.
What? No snappy comeback? No pseudo-intellectual retort? No slathering of Liberal talking points BS? You must be having an off day.
No delusions of grandeur here, Wizzy. Sorry you couldn't think of a better comeback.
Perhaps another time and place but I'll be around. Will you?
The main reason I hate him is his adherence to Keynesian economics with deficits that will tie Bush's 8 years of bad budgeting in a matter of 4. They don't call him the 'Kenyan Keynesian' for nothing.
Another 4 year term and he will tie both Bushes in deficit spending.
See, this here is a clear policy disagreement (though kinda marred by the "Kenyan Keynesian" thing).
We could actually discuss the various things that the two Bushes did with their deficit spending, and what Obama bought with his, and talk about the relative merits of those things.
Much better than "The guy's an un-American socialist-fascist who wants to destroy America and impose Sharia-law because he's really from Kenya and works for the Orbital Mind-Control Lasers."
from my perspective, whether overspending through defense or whether by overspending by giving to welfare needs, i have plain and simple been stolen from through inflation. I'm not rich by any means but I do have a savings and inflation by any means is stealing from someone who has already earned and been taxed once already. its not a one time tax but a tax on total wealth accumulated by a second and hidden tax so that those with even a meager savings whether for emergency money or retirement or even just something big like a car have lost a second time around and so the fly by the seat of your pants and just hope for the best and spend now even if by credit mentality wins and someone trying to eliminate the interest bearing debt of a purchase now for a little frugal savings and discipline lose. A bad way to run an economy when failure in exercising disipline and fiscal restraint is rewarded and the opposite is denegrated...
luckily i had about half saved in silver and gold when prices were low but its a sad state when one must turn their paper into gold to keep it from being confiscated by politicians who have no fiscal restraint themselves and so impose their unrestraint on others through hidden DOUBLE taxation of wealth I have already been taxed on before ,no matter how small the amount. ...and P.S. my comment did not come close to what you spun it out to be above...orbital mind-control lasers.. are you kidding me.. my comment was purely economical with none of the gibberish you added other than him being Kenyan and an economic Keynesian. ( a light jab ) ... however I suspect you were referrinng to the typical response by others against him...if so then let's discuss those merits you think are deserving of me having my wealth taxed a second time while someone who spent all their money in the now didn't get the tax a second time... and don't say the Fed purely caused inflation through bailouts and has nothing to do with the deficit because it's the uncontrolled deficit which renders the BALANCE OF PAYMENTS unworkable and eventually causes the Fed to have to act on behalf of 'Gitner' to supply the underfunded treasury with its counterfeited FED bank notes.(not to mention the unjust corporate bailouts)... it goes something like this...'Hey Benny'..'Yeah Timmy' the Kenyan Keynesian is pushing a deficit so large the treasury can't maintain the balance of payments...' how much ya need, Timmy"...'about a half a TRIL now and half a TRIL in six months, Benny'...' 10-4 Timmy!'...and the out of control Keynesian spending goes on and on as savers lose and lose and a few even beg to have their wealth stolen this way and praise the act. Total lunacy. all in the name of helping some social group who( in most cases)are undeserving of it outside the elderly and mentally incapable.Too many groups trying to vie for my little 'ole' savings.
" however I suspect you were referrinng to the typical response by others against him.." Exactly. You were talking about economic policies and not that other nonsense, which is good.
"if so then let's discuss those merits you think are deserving of me having my wealth taxed a second time while someone who spent all their money in the now didn't get the tax a second time."
"don't say the Fed purely caused inflation through bailouts and has nothing to do with the deficit "
Fair enough. I won't say that. I don't actually need to.
Why? Because...inflation has been lower than average under Obama. Heck, in 2009, the inflation rate was -0.34%. That's the opposite of inflation.
The last time we had deflation was 1955.
Would you rather go back to the way things were under Reagan? In 1981 the inflation rate was 10.35%. In '82 it was 6.16%. The highest it's been under Obama so far has been 3.85%, and that was the first year of his administration. 2011 is shaping up to be somewhere close to 3%, and O's average inflation rate is looking lower than W's.
So, you don't like inflation. Okay: for the sake of argument I'll stipulate that inflation is bad. But it's also not happening any more than it normally does.
Got anything else?
Its easy to hate someone you've never met face to face . I don't hate Obama because I've never sat and spoken with him . I didn't vote for him. But hes my president for better or worse. Don't hate i say .VOTE!
Whoever is president, a good portion of the population is going to be foaming at the mouth, adamant that everything is going wrong and that their guy would be waving a magic wand and fixing every problem is sight. It just seems to be the way of the world.
No, see, the GOP can't let a Dem POTUS accomplish anything, even if it'd help the country. Defeating Obama (or whichever Dem is in the Whitehouse) is much more important than the good of the country. Who loves the USA more than their agenda? Well, who compromised to keep the USA from defaulting on its debts?
You are aware that they are in different parties and have totally different ideological viewpoints right? The new congressman were sent there with the blessing of those they represent to NOT work with Obama, he is a horrible leader, that isn't the republicans fault.
There would have been no default. Yet another liberal misrepresentation of reality - reminds me of the silliness about WMDs and Florida.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11170992 … table.html
What kind of "compromise" is it when the national debt is over $1 trillion larger than last August and the POTUS wants another $1.2 trillion. This is all without Congress, under Democrat control and with Democrats in the Senate refusing to put it to a vote after January 2011, passing a budget.
Congress has jettisoned it responsibility for the budget by simply not passing one and voting for spending piecemeal, all supported by a President who sees every dollar as another opportunity to brow beat, gain say, belittle, bad mouth, glad hand and just plain manipulate.
There is no President or Prime Minister on Planet Earth, that is not loved and hated. There will always be people who love a President and always people who hate their president.
Even if God came down to be president of America, some people would still have issues with Him and want Him out...
I agree. For example, Saddam Hussein might be perceived as a malevolent evil by countries that were in conflict with Iraq, but at the same time, some of the people of Iraq agree with his views and actions (and they are not forced to agree). A president and a prime minister and any other official are all imperfect, and they cannot redress all of the problems we are having.
I think the paramount drawback of an official is that they would become complacent and snobbish because of their well-paid salary. If that is the case, then I would suppose that that is the reason of why you did not support the president or prime minister.
Remember, Abraham Lincoln was despised by the senate, the public, and his own cabinet who pulled stunts like smearing honey on door knobs in the White House just to devil him. Franklin Roosevelt, with a name like that, was of course considered to be part of that Zionist Conspiracy white anti semites refer too. The man who brought us out of the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl and WWII was wide hated. The fact that Obama is hated is no shadow on the man, just the haters.
I would sincerely like to know which economic genius is telling people to cash out their savings accounts and 401(k)s and keep a stack of silver and gold under the porch.
Seriously. Where is this idea emanating from?
You (mel22) are not the first I've heard doing this.
And how practical is that? What do you do? Grab a few ingots when you head down to WalMart and use them as cash?
And you are aware, right, that it takes about 30 years for gold to regain its value? So unless you plan to keep your ingot into retirement, you're actually losing value with this strategy?
In terms of being taxed twice, tax-deferred savings. Ever hear of it?
What's funny is that the gold bugs are advising everyone to buy high. Gold is at historic highs. If we could go back in time to January or February, 2000, it'd be a great idea to buy as much gold as you could.
But now? It's a terrible idea to buy gold, not if you want to come out ahead. Sure, it might go up a little more, but I really doubt it's going to go too much higher, and it will almost certainly come back down again. Buying gold now is a great way to lose money.
I don't know where you heard that about the 30-year thing, MM, but it doesn't sound very right to me. Gold values go up and down based on demand and scarcity. It's expensive now because people are buying it up, just like in 1999. When everyone stops freaking out, it will go back down in value.
Finally, if the gold bugs are right and society is really about to collapse, gold won't be very valuable in the aftermath. You can't eat it. you can't drink it. You can't keep warm with it. You can't take shelter under it. It's not worth a darn as a construction material or to make tools from.
You want to be prepared for a societal collapse, stock up on stuff like dry, nonperishable food, a gun or two and plenty of ammo, seeds, sandbags, plenty of spare socks and underwear, whiskey and other spirits, and that kind of thing. Gold? All it does is sit there and look pretty. All the other stuff listed will keep you alive, and you can trade it for other stuff that you might run out of.
If you already have a lot of gold, great. Now wouldn't be a bad time to sell, especially if you bought it back just after the y2k, when it only cost about $200/oz.
30 year figure came from my broker.
Not that I was seriously contemplating cashing out my portfolio to buy gold.
But I know people who already have.
And already had to cash back in their silver -- at (surprise) a loss.
But briquettes, as lovely and shiny as they may be, are heavy. If you have a lot of money, where would you keep the gold equivalent, anyway?
And it seems like a cumbersome currency to trade for the dry goods, survival gear and guns & ammo that will truly be in demand on 12/21/12.
Call me naive, but if you're that worried about the world crashing, go with cash, not gold. If your cash happens to be in Euros, you may have a problem.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea that if you buy gold, it will take 30 years for it to regain its value....Unless your broker meant that buying gold ought to be a long-term investment, and you ought not to worry so much about market fluctuations (good advice for any small investor).
But I'm getting off (more off?) topic.
Obama isn't making gold cost $1639.82/oz. (as of this morning). Or not by himself, anyway. That price is being driven by the the fact that so many of our electronic gadgets use gold to make their parts, and there are so many more electronic gadgets in the world today. And also by the gold bugs--people who are freaking out and trying to buy up all the gold they can get their hands on because they think the world is going to end or whatever. It's demand-driven. There's only so much gold in the world. It doesn't get used up the way oil does, but once it's in a computer, it ain't exactly easy to reclaim.
All in all, buy gold if you want some, but don't buy it because you think the world is ending, or the economy is crashing. That won't help you very much.
It's the "gold bugs" you've mentioned that are causing me to even discuss gold with my broker. Has never been on my radar screen any longer than those maudlin "Monex" commercials (don't see those anymore).
A zealous 20-year-old friend of my 19-year-old son has been bitten by a gold bug. I believe literally! He is trying hard to convince my son he needs to cash out his dad's inheritance, move to Colorado (because California is going to be hit by an earthquake and the polar caps are reversing and unless you are above 7,800 feet you will be underwater) and live completely out of the system.
In theory, it's a great plan to live off the land and be unencumbered by the trappings of the capitalist system. In theory.
The 20-year-old put all his worldly possessions (maybe $500) into silver but when the harsh reality of buying groceries hit, he had to liquidate.
The problem with my son is INHERITANCE.
Orders of magnitudes larger than $500 is what he's trying to turn into gold!
I really do need to write a hub about this. It's too crazy, really.
For anyone who thinks I am anti-capitalist, I will happily provide my broker as a reference. You will see how hard and long we have both fought to convince my son to keep his money IN the system so it can continue to EARN him money.
UCV -- I am talking to you here.
buying gold now is out of the question for someone who beleives monetary inflation causes price inflation, because at the moment monetary inflation is in check by the last congressional agreement...its an Austrian school perspective; to the girl in blue-
i bought early when prices were just over 900.. its now at 1600.. i havn't lost by any means... but its a long term investment unless a repub gets to the white house at which point i'll sell because i don't think a repub would push such high deficits causing the fed to push money into the system... now silver.. i owned quite earlier at about 9 dollars an ounce... i sold quite a bit after qe2 ran out because i didnt see any qe3 on the horizon with the congressiuonal constraints i listed anbove.the price hit 50 i waited a bit it dropped to 45 and i got out... silver is a good mid range poor mans investment( when inflation occurs) the gold is lonng term .. i'm holding until the election and selling or keeping based on results.
@brandt the numbers you cite( are they from the CPI) because the CPI doesn't include oil which is destroying everyones pocket ( not just at the moment either..for quite awhile) which is eating into savings... i trust the numbers I on pay on things ; not what the govt CPI says i am paying out of pocket- everyone knows the gov't only uses the CPI to keep from paying higher COLA's to seniors under the current PONZI scheme.. i mean social security( although i'm not in favor of snatching it from underneath them since that would be stealing from someone who contributed.
Lastly, if you re read my original post you'd see I was not in favor of bush's policy either.. it wasn't a vote in favor but to use as an example that I didn't think anyone could outspend what he did in his final years.
back to your numbers...do they include the housing bust because obviously that deflated, but to say that prices elsewhere are not inflating because the total number was being offset by the deflation in housing makes for bad discussion. I see prices on food and gas and energy going off the charts... not sure why you don;t... now a big screen tv that might be in a downward spiral but all tech is after its inception; but how often do I need to buy a new tv compared to daily living necessities... thats why I don't listen to the CPI when its my billfold screaming at me.
I leave you with your own quote -'Finally, if the gold bugs are right and society is really about to collapse, gold won't be very valuable in the aftermath. You can't eat it. you can't drink it. You can't keep warm with it. You can't take shelter under it. It's not worth a darn as a construction material or to make tools from.'
- You can't eat paper fiat either Jeff( well technically ) you can't drink paper fiat...and ya can't...i suppose you could burn the paper for warmth i'll give you that one.. and you can't take shelter under it. Not all people who are Gold bugs buy because they think 2012 is it .. some people accumulate it as a way to save againt inflation while otherS prefer to buy stocks. nOW DIVIDEND STOCKS MIGHT ONLY HIKE UP AT THE RATE OF INFLATION AS WELL IF ITS AS HIGH AS TODAYS PRICES... WOOPS CAPS LOCK NOT GONNA RETYPE ... OBVIOUSLY BUYING NOW WOULD BE A MISTAKE SINCE ITS AT A PEAK UNTIL FURTHER qe NOTICE ALTHOUGH THIS 1.2 TRIL ANNOUNCEMENT MIGHT SEE A GOOD SPIKE. not again.. caps lock.. anyway.. ok now i forgotr what i was gonna write.. i leave at that for now
They probably hate him for this reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … CYB0tclsKQ
00:33m is scary!
Anwar Al-Lawki was a pal of the United States. He dined at the Pentagon weeks after 9-11.
You cannot just murder someone without them getting a fair trial. Americans can be deemed terrorists by the State. Should they be killed without having a fair trial?
I voted for Obama and I cannot stand the man now, and know what a mistake I made, only because he was smart enough to keep his mouth shut and for whatever reason even Republicans cannot do anything about a non-American becoming president. (Or prove his college claims!) Maybe another J.Edgar Hoover has something on them all is all I can figure. This has nothing to do with racism therefore as you can see and what an out for people to always scream that! The man is a liar and look at our country now at an all time low. Where is the millions he took for border patrol, (haha) where is the billions Hillary took to Mexico for drug control? (Please, we give them a free ticket in and house and feed them! Besides all the ones we support that are not drug pushers at a pretty hefty few billion I am sure!) Could that be why everyone seems to hate him? Will they be fool enough to believe him again? I sure won't!
Just curious, where do you get your information?
by ixwa 9 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a...
by Thomas Byers 6 years ago
What do you think about President Obama so far?People blame the President when the US Congress that is controlled by the Republicans is really screwing over America. How anyone could support the so called Tea Party is beyond me. They really don't care about the average American. They are only...
by Stacie L 4 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
by Sandria Green-Stewart 9 years ago
Why are Americans so angry at the present administration? Is it misplaced anger from the last 4 yea
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
Election time is nearer and nearer. It is time now for President's Obama assessment. What grade you give President Obama so far? Please detail what grade you would give and why?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|