The Stock Market and Investing

1155156158160161213

Comments

  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    Linking cars and business together for once - here's a good story in todays NY Times about BMW. One thng in the story I specifically agree with is that young people care much less about cars and performance than they did when I was growing up. Automobile mags need to focus on things other than their bias for performance and brands because that strategy is getting them nowhere. My son has no interest at all in reading my automobile mags and all of his friends are the same way. Part of this (and I asked a few of them why the other night) is they are much more interested in high mileage cars and reliability (which gets almost no coverage in these mags) over performance and they complain that once you read one or two months of an auto mag you don't need to read anything more. Plus they say there is no differentiation in them - they are all the same. As one of my sons friends said to me - "they rather write about limited edition $250K-$1Mln + cars that almost no one can buy rather than the affordable cars we want to know about".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/business/global/bmw-chief-faces-big-test-of-hi- - s-strategy.html?pagewanted=all
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    edited November 2012
    Many things have changed. No doubt the biggest difference is that today, most young people simply can't afford to drive a modern car with any performance ability, not to mention purchase it - fuel, insurance, maintenance compared to wages are insane, and that's not counting the purchase. Unless daddy is nice, an appliance box is the likely result.

    But, the vast majority aren't car enthusiasts and likely wouldn't read car mags anyway. In the past, did the casually interested bother to read those either? For the most part, I've always thought either one is a rabid car nut, or just doesn't care. Not a lot of middle ground. If the enthusiast rags wrote mostly about Corollas and hybrids, the sales loss from car nuts would probably far exceed the gain from the casual. Hmm...gives an idea. A magazine or a group of them that are only about normal everyday cars that enthusiasts would consider to be too boring to bother to read about. I wonder if it would sell.

    I noticed a current 3 series ad is actually touting mileage, so maybe the suits are learning about attracting a new demographic.

    The highlines have also developed some dependency on the BRICs, which might not be a good strategy.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    We had about 40 family and friends together for Thanksgiving. All the younger generation had smartphones. About half of the older folks had them. The smartphones with pictures being shared got the most attention. You would think with about a dozen young men under 25 that cars would come up. I did not hear a single mention of cars. Most drive appliance cars and PU trucks. My brother in law that is a couple years younger than I am, has a Mustang he is tired of. Not an exotic in the parking area. Most would be lucky to have enough cash for a Yaris. But they can afford that $100 plus a month for a silly smartphone.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    edited November 2012
    When most of us older guys were growing up, we did not have all the entertainment choices and distractions that kids have today.

    In those days, having a car meant freedom...and freedom meant the opportunity to at least have a chance of being alone with a girl. The more impressive the car, the better the chance.

    Even today, when guys of our era hit middle age and realize the girls are no longer flocking after them, they rush out and buy a red convertible.

    So, back then we were obsessed with cars because we were obsessed with girls. Now, with women's lib, the sexual revolution, and all that goes along with it, young men today don't care that much about cars because they have easier access to...most things.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    Charlie
    The iphone was available at the verizon store in N C, so the wife is bringing it home..Just paid for it, so that should show up in aapl`s earnings ....grandson still has a loss, but not for long :) Just to cheer you up...Tony
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    I stayed out of the mall today but I dropped my daughter off and had to deal with gridlocked traffic as I tried to exit. My daughter said there was a very long line to get into the Apple store and they didn't even have anything on sale. Amazing to run a business where almost every day is black Friday at full retail prices.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    The mall was still incredibly busy again today. Hardly looks like a bad economy here. Went to see Lincoln afterward and the theatre was full to the brim. Three high draw movies playing at the same time made it very difficult to find parking. Lincoln is exceptional movie-making and a great political movie/docudrama. All the roles could be nominated for an oscar as far as I'm concerned but Daniel Day Lewis is just in his own world as an actor. He's as much Lincoln as George C Scott was Patton and never in my life did I think I'd see an actor as great as George C Scott- especially in his performance as Patton. Tommy Lee Jones almost matched Lewis in his role as Thaddeus Stevens and Sally Field was her usual exceptional self. Hard to believe she was once "The Flying Nun".

    Highly recommended.
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    Tony, I really believe that you will love the iPhone 5.
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    Lincoln is exceptional movie-making and a great political movie/docudrama. All the roles could be nominated for an oscar as far as I'm concerned but Daniel Day Lewis is just in his own world as an actor.

    Len,

    My wife and I are very much looking forward to seeing this movie hopefully next weekend.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    It's not an excitement movie. It's a psychological political movie about the thirteenth amendment and advancing human rights. Lincoln and Stevens were at the center of it and Stevens makes a few great comments in the movie that I won't spoil for anyone. Lincoln makes a wealth of them and tells a comical Ethan Allen story for the ages. It also shows a side of Lincoln that you don't know from textbooks. Let me clarify that by saying my generation of textbooks. Not sure about textbooks of today. Without saying anything further about what that is I will say he did what he had to do. IMO - this movie is going to sweep the oscars.

    One other thing is when did Reps and Dems switch sides? In Lincoln's day it seems reps were the radical liberals and dems were the conservatives. I was never one to follow party politics that far back.

    I have O'Reilly's Killing Kennedy and Killing Lincoln books on my desk in my study as my next readings and I'm more interested in the latter first. BTW - a Kennedy was involved in the making of the movie.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. The two parties up to that time were much less divided than today. FDR tried to get Hoover to run as a Democrat. The Democrats under Truman's influence tried to get Ike to run on their ticket. The election of 1948 probably marked a big transition. The Democrats were divided with the DixieCrats running Strom Thurmond as their own candidate. Truman was a vocal advocate of desegregation. No one thought he could beat Dewey. His relentless campaigning to the people paid off and he did win. Truman was a Fiscal Conservative with a social conscience. I could be a Truman Democrat. I don't share any of the ideology of the Democrats of today. They have gone off the deep end and taken US all with them.
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    edited November 2012
    Don't ask me why or how I could do this but I had no idea that the stock market was open on Black Friday. I obviously should have known better, but I was so busy with sports (ISU-West Virginia game that WVU unfortunately won) back on Friday that I totally forgot about the stock market. And since I forgot about the stock market I did not even realize that AAPL had a good day on Friday. I did not learn this until a few hours ago. What a pleasant surprise!! I typically check the AAPL stock many times during the day and I am astounded that the thought never occurred to me to check it out on Friday. No wonder Tony mentioned above that his grandson would not be loosing on his Apple shares for long.

    And, here is THE main reason why AAPL was strong on Friday. Take a look at the link below. This is VERY encouraging for AAPL. This report was not even available back on Friday so this should bode well for tomorrow.

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/25/apple-ipad-black-friday/?source=yahoo_quo- - - te
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    For the first handy thing I did with the phone, was enter Waze.com, or something like that....Google ....It is a traffic reporting thing that really works....The more people who join, the better....When you see a wreck, or a policeman, you notify them, and along with all the other members, waze reports back....It exactly points out where the police are---to the foot--and traffic slowdowns ....I think everyone will benefit from this thing....

    I think Lincoln by Gore Vidol (sp) was a really goood book..Have it at the farm and will report back it that isn`t the author`s name.....I look forward to the movie..

    The iphone is very nice, and I am warming to it quickly....:) Tony
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    edited November 2012
    Rip Van Winkle checking in. I finally woke up. :)

    I was watching CNBC the past hour and I heard a very interesting interview with Gene Munster (famous analyst). He was at the Mall of America and conducted surveys at both the Microsoft and Apple stores. First of all, the traffic and the Apple Store was at least twice as large. Secondly, in the two hours that he was at Microsoft Store, not one Surface tablet was sold. When he asked people exiting the store why they did not buy a Surface, the common answer was that it was too much like a PC. They were mostly buying things like the X - Box. Meanwhile, the demand for the iPad Mini and iPhone at the Apple store was through the roof, but unfortunately, they had no iPad Minis to pick up at the store due to supply constraints. There is a two week waiting period. The iPhone 5 supply constraint is gradually improving. All this tells me that Microsoft is in trouble with their Surface tablet.

    Here is a a Forbes article about the APPL stock prospects for the near and longer term:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsaintvilus/2012/11/26/why-apple-might-regain-- - 600-this-week/?partner=yahootix
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    A totally irresponsible column in todays NY Times by Paul Krugman. I often bypass his columns because he's in the oort zone of comets when it comes to liberalism. But this one will really make your jaw drop. He thinks the last thing we shoud do is make any attempt at reducing the deficit and we should just keep spending ourselves into oblivion. In his mind as long as there's someone to finance our spending why worry about it. Of course he's all for a tax increase which contradicts his thinking - ah - unless all he wants to do is spend and waste that money too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/krugman-fighting-fiscal-phantoms.html

    Then there's a very responsible column written by Warren Buffett. I actually agree with a lot of it as he also believes that the $250k "rich" bracket constantly defined by Obama needs to be raised. He suggests $500K. I like his idea of a minimum tax on the over $1mln taxable incomes but I'd allow a large deduction against that for business income and LT cap gains from the sale of businesses. Again my reasoning here is don't punish the crowd that is hiring America and taking risks to do it. I again make a major separation between a LT cap gain on the sale of a business vs the sale of stock in the stock market. One is starting or buying an enterprise with the intent of expanding and thus hiring people while the other is an individual purchase that some may almost view as gambling.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.- - - - - - html?_r=0

    One last thing on "Lincoln". What was touching in the movie from the audience I saw it with was that the audience loudly clapped during two scenes. The first was on the passing of the thirteenth amendment and the second time was after he said something very poignant and started a walk down the Whitehouse corridor with his classic tall hat on in a great almost silhouette look. I think a lot of people mistakenly thought that was going to be the last scene in the movie.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    Charlie - IMO - Apple is headed right back to $700 pretty shortly. I'm just amazed at the piling on of negative press as it fell and the abrupt turn around in that reporting once it hit a certain number. Anyone that doesn't think there's high handed manipulation in stock prices is crazy. In the case of Apple though the press was so overwhelming that it took a stock with $123 bln in cash (probably $127-128bln at the time the selling was happening) and 25-30%+ growth prospects on a company already netting $50bln and dropped it's multiple to an unheard of 7X ex cash and in an unbelievable few stories this multiple was described as a bubble. One guy had a $270 price tag on Apple which ex cash is a 2X multiple. Basically Apple could have bought itself back in less than 2 years! Another guy was a little more generous - he put a $402 price on it. How stupid can these people be? If you are going to be used by people to write columns to drive a stocks price down at least have some common sense in what you write. What you really had going on here were hedge funds wanting to drive the price down to create a buying opportunity in conjunction with people that wanted to avoid the increase in LT cap gains rates. All the other things written were purely nonsense to try and legitimize the fall in price. Meanwhile the Apple stores were mobbed, products were flying off the shelves so fast that they were running out of stock and the business has a fresh product cycle while expansion is happening quickly overseas.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    edited November 2012
    But let's talk stocks:

    50% of my paper gain on AAPL is gone.
    All my gains on GM are gone.
    FB is almost back up to it's bump from 4 weeks ago.


    Talking to myself:

    AAPL up 10% in 2 weeks.
    GM picking up some steam.
    FB got a huge bump today - up almost 8% today on an upgrade to outperform. I've been dollar cost averaging weekly since August. So far so good.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Anyone that doesn't think there's high handed manipulation in stock prices is crazy.

    That is what is keeping me on the sidelines looking more at real estate. So little logic to what happens on a day to day basis.
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    edited November 2012
    A totally irresponsible column in todays NY Times by Paul Krugman.

    I am in total agreement. His commentary on this issue is totally irresponsible.

    Then there's a very responsible column written by Warren Buffett. I actually agree with a lot of it as he also believes that the $250k "rich" bracket constantly defined by Obama needs to be raised. He suggests $500K.

    I bet this is exactly what happens in a compromise. As I stated last week, I am very optimistic that we will have a deal done that will be sensible.

    My wife and I are going to see "Lincoln" on Saturday evening if we can get tickets. We"ll find a way to do so.

    EDIT: I forgot to mention that my wife and I, for the first time ever, tried the Wagyu burgers this evening. It was 24 degrees outside and we decided to cook them on an iron skillet. Yummy, yummy, yummy, we're they good! We have 6 left I think. Next time I will try the strip steaks.
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    Rob, those manipulators a scared the hell out of us, but it looks like we prevailed. My last purchase of of Apple shares was at $579 I believe as it was on its way to a mind boggling level of $505. Unfortunately, I did not buy any more. Things are looking a LOT better now, but I admit that my confidence has been severely tested in the past couple months.
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    I think you`v done well , and with aapl, belief is the remedy for the manipulators...Grandson is now getting happier :)

    I am enjoying the phone, but it is a poor substitute for a larger computer....As mentioned my wife loves her iPad, and mine is defective with the antenna...They will replace it....I`l be getting her another so Charlie, some more profit for you all Tony
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    Here is an article from Barons stating that the iPhone 5 has taken the lead over the Android smartphones.

    http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2012/11/27/apple-regains-u-s-smartphone- -lead-with-iphone-5/?mod=yahoobarrons
  • cyclone4cyclone4 Member Posts: 2,302
    edited November 2012
    Apple has fired the manager of Maps software. It's encouraging for us Apple device owners to read in this article that they have already made improvements on Maps. I have been using it quite often and have found it to be reliable lately. In the beginning, I found an error right away here in Des Moines.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/apple-said-to-fire-maps-manager-after-f- - laws-hurt-iphone-5-debut.html?cmpid=yhoo
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    As I stated last week, I am very optimistic that we will have a deal done that will be sensible.

    I hope so Charlie. But if the Dems don't move on cuts the reps will pull the taxes right off the table. This column gives me a lot of pause on a compromise.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/us/politics/politics-in-play-over-safety-net-i- n-deficit-talks.html?ref=todayspaper

    And something like this will kill the upper middle class, particularly two income families.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/congressional-proposal-could- -create-bubble-in-tax-code/
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    edited November 2012
    Crazy stuff, although I don't know how those 400K income families will be "killed", per se...and of course the repubs won't cut their sacred children (military-industrial complex) either.

    Good comment there:

    "The Clinton era tax rates seem to have been for the most part, substantially effective in keeping the economy healthy. I keep wondering what great disaster would befall us should the Bush tax cuts simply be left to expire. Certainly these former rates were not factoring two unfunded wars, the Wall Street-Bankers scams, and the latest lack of responsibility from the financial sectors today.

    Defense cuts do seem to be greater than popular theory holds acceptable, but these reductions are not all-at-once and would be done over ten years.

    The congress can at anytime restore funding, lower targeted tax rates, and generally vote for spending as they see fit. I think that until the so-called fiscal cliff is reached and we see what the acutal results will be, we cannot just Trust the Powers that are currently invested in the Status Quo.

    I think it's time to allow the laws of Gravity to regain a foothold in our financial landscape, which in this case is to allow the failed tax policies of the Bush era to just die, and return to a already proven succesful model. And no, we should not allow for the Tax Bubble to have any chance of success."
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    Crazy stuff, although I don't know how those 400K income families will be "killed",

    Moreso the $150k + $150K crowd. If you live in the NY area that's not all that much money. By the time you pay the mortgage, state taxes, real estate tax, the new fed taxes and cover your needs you don't have much in the way of savings and basically the government is taking away your discetionary spending that would pump the economy. If you bought a house 15 years ago you can bear it a lot easier. Basically a recovery tax to 39.6% here plus state taxes and real estate taxes puts your total taxes at over 55% of income and that's without adding in sales, gas and other local taxes.

    I think everyone forgets Clinton governed during the dot com era which brought unemployment rates to 4% and when that bubble burst in conjunction with 9/11 it didn't matter who was president, the US economy was headed into major problems. I'd hardly look at this economy vs the economy of the dot com era and write a statement like that in a public article. Understand it's also a NY Times article and the prejudice to liberalism there is incredible. I don't think I've read a positive comment on a republican in the Times once in the last 10 years. What they did to Romney was an absolute shame and blatantly childish. They made the National Enquirer look like all time pro reporting.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    "The Clinton era tax rates seem to have been for the most part, substantially effective in keeping the economy healthy.

    While I am not adverse to letting the Bush tax cuts end. It would cost me a few thou more per year. I don't think we have anywhere close to as robust economy as the Dot.com bubble produced. Add to the fact that states like CA are adding to the tax burden on upper middle class. Causing a job migration out of the state. I think the problem has been the tax and spend Democrats all along. Only time will tell. I hear both Belize and Costa Rica are good safe shelters. One bank in Belize is offering 5% on deposits of $50k or more...
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    Isn't that why people flee to Joisey or head north? :shades:

    There was past prosperity with the upper few percent paying more taxes than today. The trickle down experiment didn't work, unless people blindly look at 2005 as a real economy.

    The dot com era didn't really pick up steam until what, maybe 1996 or later? I think the relative recovery from earlier malaise was underway before then.

    Romney had enough issues all by himself anyway. GOP needs to find some credible voices, and now.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    But it was more robust than now, yes? Today, a decade into yet another trickle down experiment, with no significant uptick in sight.

    Maybe assessments on fleeing capital should be at a point where taking advantage of an existing system to make a fortune and then running away when the bills come do becomes unattractive...
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    I think when you say `Clinton governed` you put your finger right on the spot....I really haven`t seen any `governing` in the last four years...The Republicans have stayed as a block, and the Democrats also..Clinton liked, and did sit down with the opposition, and came to deals---give and take deals....the same types of deals everyone use to complain about.....What we need is some `old time` politicians..ones that govern

    I think Buffets thought to have everyone above a certain number to pay thirty percent, and as you say there are certain parts of the country that are vastly cheaper to live in...Most of those place also don`t have the potential to make alot of money.....

    If I could do it all over again, I would give myself a better chance , and start in a expensive area :) , but then again it takes ingenuity no matter where..

    I`m with Charlie in that I am encouraged by the future, but at the same time , as you, I want to see some spending cuts , and not trivial things but some genuine cuts, not slowdowns in future things, but cuts......There are some bloated broken things out there in the name of Government..... and also in the name of Business....Just think make twenty million and pay fifteen percent, make three hundred thousand and pay thirty five plus other state taxes...Sorry it`s broken Tony
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Today, a decade into yet another trickle down experiment, with no significant uptick in sight.

    No possible way you can call the last 6 years trickle down. Most of the Stimulus went to welfare programs. Much of it went to Medicaid and Unemployment compensation. That is Trickle Up economics IMO. Most of TARP went to Wall st, insurance companies and the banks. It did not trickle anywhere. As loans are tougher now than anytime in my memory. We are not doing very well with that experiment either. The only bubbles I see now are deficit bubbles. Personal, state and Federal. Borrowing against an unknown future.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    I can call the past decade a trickle down experiment. Ever since someone decided the top few needed a tax cut. Then we had an unconnected (and false) boom, followed by a collapse, and then malaise. I can't find anything to tell me things would be any worse without that gift given a decade ago. And really, it goes back past that. Home loans are tougher now, but that might not be a bad thing.

    Trickle up economic claims would be stronger if any wealth gains were being made by people other than those who reap the trickle down rewards. They aren't, so...if anything, those safety net increases were there to lower the odds of any unrest.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited November 2012
    They aren't, so...if anything, those safety net increases were there to lower the odds of any unrest.

    You are obviously not familiar with our many and varied welfare programs. When A man can get disability for 10 years with a wife and 2 kids that pays him more to not look for something he can do, we have a system that rewards those that are not wanting to work. I don't consider $38k in welfare plus full medicaid some kind of trickle down. You're brainwashed by liberals.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Clinton liked, and did sit down with the opposition, and came to deals---give and take deals....the same types of deals everyone use to complain about.....What we need is some `old time` politicians..ones that govern

    I think Clinton enjoyed the debate with those across the aisle. Obama does not even talk to people in his own party according to his number one fan Chris Matthews. He prefers talking to other world leaders and his very close advisers. Valerie Jarrett has more influence than any of the Democrats in Congress.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Basically a recovery tax to 39.6% here plus state taxes and real estate taxes puts your total taxes at over 55% of income and that's without adding in sales, gas and other local taxes.

    Higher taxes could backfire as they did in the UK.

    In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

    This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

    Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

    “Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”

    Mr Osborne argued earlier this year that the 50p rate was deterring entrepreneurs from coming to Britain.

    The Chancellor wanted to scrap the top rate altogether for those earning more than £150,000 a year – and return to the previous system of a basic and top rate of tax.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left- -Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,696
    >I think when you say `Clinton governed` you put your finger right on the spot....I really haven`t seen any `governing` in the last four years...

    No governing occurred. No experience is the problem. Goals that are social engineering oriented rather than successful economy oriented is next. Unable to discuss and negotiate and make a decision without checking with his handlers. That's what happened when Boehner and he had reached potential agreement last spring or summer and He had to go check with the handlers based on the up-coming election and then turned it down. Clinton would have negotiated, make a compromise, and settled for the good of the people. Then he would have triangulated what he was doing compared to what he actually did so most people thought he was actually taking a position one way but he went another.

    >The Republicans have stayed as a block, and the Democrats also.

    But, again, the democrats in the senate moving NO bills that the Republicans had moved in the House was all intended to make the Republicans look ineffective, while it's the Senate who has done nothing--still waiting for a real budget from them are we? Add in a compliant media who presents everything pro-democrat rather than giving a Walter Cronkite middle-of-the-road evaluation of what's occurring in DC, and we have the Republicans being framed as the problem rather than the ineffective Prez and senate, to wit Harry Reid.

    Looking at all that, I expect the prez in between campaign trips here and overseas to let the talks between some distant advisor and the Senate and House fail so that the tax rates go up and the cuts to that awful military go into effect. Then he will step up with executive orders to fix certain parts of the tax increases, lowering them back to "help the middle class" and take credit for being the good guy with those who don't actually analyze what goes on. He will have gained military spending decreases. And it won't have been his fault--rather it's the fault of those republicans in the House and the MS media will regurgitate whatever fits his bill. Is it too late to vote for Hillary?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    My theory on Obama is that he wants to be president for the limelight and speaking to an adoring public and nothing more. Just look at the last two days. Instead of negotiating with both his own party (which he must do - just read the Times story I linked yesterday) and the Reps, he goes on the road to speak to the public imploring them to put pressure on the Reps. He did this same BS a year ago when he asked Americans to call up Rep congressman and complain. What kind of a leader does that? The man loves campaigning, lives for speechmaking, but hates dealing with issues. He's the ultimate example of living for the anticipation and being let down by the reality. When he needs to face cross party issues and solve them like a leader he runs away and hits the campaign trail. If this were business he'd be making speeches to shareholders to put pressure on management to sell the company he wants to buy instead of negotiating in good faith. All this does is completely turns off anyone from wanting to do business with you.
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    I`m with you on Walter Cronkite, and also most of the reporters in that era...Unfortunately the `news` tv decided to do more human interest stories, and less real news....I personally find it meaningless with all the `middle east` news and endless foreign perspectives....

    I`m hopeful that congress and the president reach a consensus, and a reasonable balanced consensus....but it certainly is possible we go over the cliff....Tony ps I am very positive on what the future holds....
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    NJ has a higher effective marginal tax rate than NY now. It already has in place the bubble tax and it allows only a limited real estate tax credit or deduction (whichever is greater). It also allows a more generous medical deduction but it's hardly very good and that's it for deductions against income. If you have a business loss in NJ you don't get credit for it. Instead you add it to your basis in the business and only get to deduct it at the time you sell the business. Real estate taxes are very high. People outside of NJ don't seem to know how high taxes are here.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    One of the best articles I've read in the Times about taxes. I'm amazed the editor allowed it to be published. Obama's policy of trying to only collect from the rich is going to prove to be a disaster IMO especially when 50% of America pays no income tax and you have a growing number of people who operate on pure cash to avoid taxes. On top of that he and the Dems want to open the floodgates to immigrants that will operate the same way and pay little or no tax and of course vote Dem thanks to their entitlement policies and the ability to give them tax avoidance. He needs to go to a flatter tax and a consumption tax so that he captures everyone. It'll generate more money and a fairer tax code and end the worst entitlement we have of them all - the ability to get major benefits and pay no taxes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/business/combatting-inequality-may-require-bro- - - - - - ader-tax.html?ref=business
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    No governing occurred. No experience is the problem. Goals that are social engineering oriented rather than successful economy oriented is next. Unable to discuss and negotiate and make a decision without checking with his handlers. That's what happened when Boehner and he had reached potential agreement last spring or summer and He had to go check with the handlers based on the up-coming election and then turned it down. Clinton would have negotiated, make a compromise, and settled for the good of the people. Then he would have triangulated what he was doing compared to what he actually did so most people thought he was actually taking a position one way but he went another.

    That's exactly why the party wanted Obama over a much better leader in Hillary in 2008. She would have told them to go stuff it instead of being their puppet. Neither party wants a strong leader, just one that'll do what the behind the scenes people want. That's why we go nowhere until a crisis develops.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    I can call the past decade a trickle down experiment. Ever since someone decided the top few needed a tax cut. Then we had an unconnected (and false) boom, followed by a collapse, and then malaise. I can't find anything to tell me things would be any worse without that gift given a decade ago. And really, it goes back past that. Home loans are tougher now, but that might not be a bad thing.

    Small business loans are next to impossible. Without small business loans there is no trickle down whatsoever. I was only able to secure one bank to loan my company money and I've got a 1.40 coverage ratio vs the days when banks loaned at 1.05 or 1.10. Many banks require 1.50 which is incredibly high as it means you have 1.5X the cash flow you need for fixed commitments. Large businesses are cash rich - we have more corporate money by far than ever in history - and borrow unnecessarily simply because of such extraordinarily low rates.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It takes some countries longer to realize that Marxism does not equal a vibrant economy. Cuba is such a country that is just now coming out of the dark ages of communism. Just as we slip into the trap.

    The government's free market reforms introduced over the last two years, are designed to encourage small businesses, private farming and individual initiative, along with plans to pay state workers more. Under the new tax code the state hopes to get its share of the proceeds.

    The government also envisions replacing subsidies for all with targeted welfare, meaning that the largely tax-free life under a paternalistic government is on its way out.


    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49989684
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Isn't there a politics thread somewhere for you guys?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    edited November 2012
    Did you get any actual evidence of those income claims? Sometimes people round up, to put it nicely. Is he actually unable to work?

    And if anything, welfare isn't wealth. That gap does nothing but widen.

    Barry was elected 3 weeks ago, and the markets nor the dollar have collapsed yet. Maybe the future isn't wrecked.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,522
    Then why live there? Must be a lot of ingrained opportunity around to compensate for the costs. Sometimes to live in a high profit area, high prices need to be paid.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It got shut down.

    What about GMCR & COST?? And GOOG today?

    Anyone buy before the headed up??
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Then why live there?

    Because my business is nearby in NY, my family is here, my friends are here, my roots are here, it's convenient to anything you want or need, I love the year round climate and I can afford it.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    edited November 2012
    The politics of taxes and the market are intimately entwined right now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/business/companies-are-expected-to-increase-bu- - ybacks.html

    And here goes Obama on the campaign trail - again - because that seems to be the only thing the man really wants to ever do. He never mentions a spending cut in public though. It's all about tax increases and the big bad Republicans as if he was still campaigning. The man is clueless on negotiating and his cheerleading actions are almost childish given he's the president of the country. To think we have 4 more years of him is scary to me.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/politics/president-obama-asks-congress-to-k- - - eep-tax-cuts-for-middle-class.html?ref=business
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    AMEN
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.