BajaNomad - 'Double Wall Barrier' talk - Will GOP immigration rhetoric cost Latino votes?

'Double Wall Barrier' talk - Will GOP immigration rhetoric cost Latino votes?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BajaGringo - 10-30-2011 at 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
Our dilemma is that our ideological choices are channeled through two political parties which command our vote, but do not represent us.

Amen to that...

BajaGringo - 10-30-2011 at 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
BajaGringo, The global standard of living? Would be interesting to know exactly what that is.

How do we avoid it? in the long run we cannot maintain regionally higher standards of living in a global economy. Any regions with a higher standard of living = higher wages meaning they cannot compete in the global economy = they will sink down to the mean.

The industrialized nations make up less than 5% of the global population. "They" figured that if the economies were boosted for the other 95% by even a modest amount it would dramatically increase "their" revenue. That is what is behind "outsourcing". It's simple math...

("They" = 1%)

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 12:36 PM

TW, listen to yourself. You just said, and I paraphrase, that the reasons why the bottom 60% have only 4% of the wealth are 1) Some people are mentally or physically unable to make it as they say and they need help.2) others are disconnected from society being a drunk, on drugs, various criminal behavior etc. 3)Divorce 4)unwed black and hispanic mothers 4)women's low wages 5)lack of proper education

Are you saying here and now that over 180,000,000 people in the USA have only 4% of the nation's wealth because of the above 5 items, 180 million out of 310 million people are poor because of their own such misbehavior? Are you thereby, by implication, saying that our economic structure has no blame for that bottom 60% having only 4% of the nation's wealth?

If so, that is one of the most abominable statements thus far, blaming well over half of the USA population for their own plight. Blaming them because of their deficiencies and their own voluntary decisions. Wow, you are some great American, some patriot you are.

BTW TW, you don't believe that the USA ranks 2nd worst in the world in wealth disparity? Look it up genius. You have just made public record of your willingness to express blatant ignorance. Look it up! It is an easy find on the internet. Look under GINI coefficient for world wealth. It's a matter of record... TW... not opinion.

Quote:

TW
By the way I don't believe the USA ranks second worst in the world for disparity of wealth. I know of a lot of countries including Mexico that are worse.

What is it with you right wingers? We recently passed corrupt Mexico on the way to 2nd place. Is this a problem of rank ignorance or voluntary hubris? Try not relying on your "hunches" and start connecting with some reality and fact. How about a little independent study? Apparantly, that wouldn't hurt you.

Cypress - 10-30-2011 at 12:50 PM

MitchMan, Independent study? And who would conduct that little farce?

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 12:59 PM

Barry, there you go again. More statements, assertions, opinions but not varifiable support. This time you topped yourself with a slew of rationalizations excusing yourself from real debate:

Quote:

Barry A.
I can "disagree" with the conconclusions reached because NEVER are all the "FACTS" presented...

...we ALL know, you can quote facts & stats to support any theory that you want, but that does not make the theory necessarily true...
... reasonable people leave room for interpretation of facts & stats...
... the fact that I don't cite "facts" to back up my statements is, to me, a RED HERRING...
...My Gawd, do you really want to wade thru all the 'facts'?? ...
... Again, the most powerful evidence that I have is my personal experience

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Barry, we're talking about economics and politics, mostly economics as it pertains to circumstances on the ground, in our country, not how many angels are on the head of a pin or the Shakespearian definition of love. Your excuses might work for that, but not for the discussion at hand. M

BTW, the stats that I quote are from IRS tax rolls and the US Census bureau, and others. Easily verified.

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
MitchMan, Independent study? And who would conduct that little farce?

You, Cypress, by you. I used the word "study" more as a verb, not a noun. Sheesh.

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
MitchMan, Independent study? And who would conduct that little farce?

Well, you had more success than I did. After quite a search, I found a site that showed the USA as about in the middle (58th out 111) of the graph for wealth distribution.

So I guess we need more instruction, or something. :rolleyes:

Barry

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 01:12 PM

Barry, I think that you found the GINI coefficient for income distribution, not wealth distribution. Look for wealth distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distributi...

It's at the bottom right of the page. I believe that Switzerland is ranked first.

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 01:13 PM

Spiro had a point after all---------You intellectual lefties all sound like chronic "nabobs of negativity" to me (or something like that).

And to prove your points, you are willing to pull the rest of us down into the morass, it would appear.

Sorry, just lazy I guess---------I am not going there. :no:

Barry

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 01:15 PM

We lefties hit you righties with the facts and better logic and continually prove you righties wrong and it just seems like you are being subjected to "nabobs of negativity" when we successfully negate your contentions.

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Barry, I think that you found the GINI coefficient for income distribution, not wealth distribution. Look for wealth distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distributi...

It's at the bottom right of the page. I believe that Switzerland is ranked first.

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

Thanks, Mitch.

On that same chart:

Check out the WEALTH PER ADULT figure!!! Impressive, but looks low to me.

Barry

Cypress - 10-30-2011 at 01:21 PM

MitchMan, Iflyfish and anybody else that subscribes to their line of thought, you are cumbersome. You're just parrotting the leftist view. A trained bird! :spingrin:

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
We lefties hit you righties with the facts and better logic and continually prove you righties wrong and it just seems like you are being subjected to "nabobs of negativity" when we successfully negate your contentions.

Facts, maybe--- stats, maybe-------better logic, I think not, and THAT is the key. "Facts" and "stats" are your stock in trade-------relating all that to the BIG PICTURE, not so much. :light:

Barry

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 01:41 PM

Oh no, Barry, if anything, I tend to look particularly at the big picture.

The stats for per capita income look low because today the nation's wealth is some $55 trilion, that GINI coefficient was reflective of $40 Trillion. But, let's digress for a moment and look at what this figure of per capita means in the Big Picture. At $55 Trillion in the nation's wealth, the per capita wealth is some $270,000 today. Now, since the bottom 40% own only 1/4 of 1% of the nation's wealth, that calculates to only about $1,100 per capita for the bottom 40% of America.

Look at that! $270,000 Vs $1,100 for 40% of the people! 40% of Americans! That is an unhealthy stat. Our economy is unhealthy, Barry. It's at critical mass. That disparity is not acceptable. And a disparity of that low magnitude is not the fault of the failings of the bottom 40% as TW would have us think. That is a clear economic system dysfunction.

The other side of this coin is that the top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth, or $15,700,000 per capita wealth for the top 1%. That is obscene and an economy killing condition. Look at the facts, that is all I am screaming about. Look at the facts!

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Oh no, Barry, if anything, I tend to look particularly at the big picture.

The stats for per capita income look low because today the nation's wealth is some $55 trilion, that GINI coefficient was reflective of $40 Trillion. But, let's digress for a moment and look at what this figure of per capita means in the Big Picture. At $55 Trillion in the nation's wealth, the per capita wealth is some $270,000 today. Now, since the bottom 40% own only 1/4 of 1% of the nation's wealth, that calculates to only about $1,100 per capita for the bottom 40% of America.

Look at that! $270,000 Vs $1,100 for 40% of the people! 40% of Americans! That is an unhealthy stat. Our economy is unhealthy, Barry. It's at critical mass. That disparity is not acceptable. And a disparity of that low magnitude is not the fault of the failings of the bottom 40% as TW would have us think. That is a clear dysfunction. Look at the facts, that is all I am screaming about. Look at the facts!

Yep, it ain't good.

But, I could go around the circle again (but I won't, thank Gawd) and say that I know how to at least help those dismal figures improve, and it ain't the way the Administration is taking, so far. Lots of great ideas out there, most of them coming from the businessmen of the Country, and the enlightened Economists. Let's get on with it. AND, in the process lets reduce spending as a share of GDP, by a LOT!!! Now that may seem like the "same old thing" to you guys, and it is, but it will work I am convinced. It's hard to say something that is SIMPLE and make it sound new and jazzy!!! Again I say, watch THE LARRY KUDLOW show on CNBC most every weekday afternoon (4 to 5pm PST) for an overview of the situation over time.

Barry

Iflyfish - 10-30-2011 at 02:17 PM

The ecomomy is showing signs of improvement. This is good news for all of us. However this does not negate the underlying stuctural problems that exist. This could help unemployment but the wealth disparity continues.
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/market-view/the-trading-...

If the current administration is responsible for the problems is it also responsible for the improvement?

Iflyfish

Iflyfish

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 02:25 PM

Fish-------to me the truth is that the Admin./Fed. has really very little it can do to help, other than stay out of the way. But they can hinder improvement by discouraging business, mostly small business, from moving ahead and hiring again (bla bla bla). This is what they have been doing, and you know all the reasons why that is true as I KNOW you have been listening. (more blaw, bla, bla)

Most of the Tea Party rally's here in Redding, Ca are small business people saying this exact same thing, many of them my friends.

Barry

Let them eat cake

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 02:29 PM

temporary fix for unemployment and income disparity

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
This could help unemployment but the wealth disparity continues.

(oops! i forgot the GOP voted to eliminate unemployment funds,... oh, well, feed the cake to the hounds!)

rts551 - 10-30-2011 at 02:30 PM

If the government would have stayed out of the way, then Madoff (entrepreneur extraordinaire) would still be working his magic. There is a valid place for government Barry.

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Fish-------to me the truth is that the Admin./Fed. has really very little it can do to help, other than stay out of the way. But they can hinder improvement by discouraging business, mostly small business, from moving ahead and hiring again (bla bla bla). This is what they have been doing, and you know all the reasons why that is true as I KNOW you have been listening. (more blaw, bla, bla)

Most of the Tea Party rally's here in Redding, Ca are small business people saying this exact same thing, many of them my friends.

Barry

TMW - 10-30-2011 at 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Oh no, Barry, if anything, I tend to look particularly at the big picture.

Look at that! $270,000 Vs $1,100 for 40% of the people! 40% of Americans! That is an unhealthy stat. Our economy is unhealthy, Barry. It's at critical mass. That disparity is not acceptable. And a disparity of that low magnitude is not the fault of the failings of the bottom 40% as TW would have us think.

I gave you true facts and you choose to ignore them. Prove anything I said was wrong.

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 02:44 PM

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 02:53 PM

TMW - 10-30-2011 at 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

BTW TW, you don't believe that the USA ranks 2nd worst in the world in wealth disparity? Look it up genius.
What is it with you right wingers? We recently passed corrupt Mexico on the way to 2nd place. Is this a problem of rank ignorance or voluntary hubris? Try not relying on your "hunches" and start connecting with some reality and fact. How about a little independent study? Apparantly, that wouldn't hurt you.

OK you want facts here they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 02:54 PM

TW, I am not disputing the objective facts that you cited, I haven't verified them either, but for the moment, I won't dispute them. What I will say is that you haven't supplied nearly enough info nor have you integrated your scant stats to even modestly prove or build a sufficient case. You have a stat here , and a stat there, but, come on, do you really think that you have actually built a tight comprehensive indisputable case? In fact, have you ever formally briefed a case?

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 02:59 PM

TW, my comment that you quoted was with regard to WEALTH disparity, not INCOME disparity. You got the wrong GINI coefficient.

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 03:06 PM

Good one, Goat.

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

OK you want facts here they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...

tw:
that looks pretty bad. based on comparing upper 10% to lower 10%, every major western country has income disparity lower than USA. the only countries with higher income disparity are undeveloped countries, autocratic regimes, and countries with teeming masses of poverty and disenfrachised:
Côte d'Ivoire
Uganda
Iran
Jamaica
Singapore
Hong Kong
Nigeria
Rwanda
Mozambique
Venezuela
Guinea-Bissau
Madagascar
Burundi
Uruguay
The Gambia
China (PRC)
Mexico
Zimbabwe
Malaysia
Costa Rica
Papua New Guinea
Swaziland
Dominican Republic
Peru
Chile
Nicaragua
Argentina
Zambia
South Africa
Guatemala
Ecuador
El Salvador
Paraguay
Brazil
Botswana
Niger
Panama
Haiti
Honduras
Colombia
Central African Republic
Sierra Leone
Bolivia
Lesotho
Namibia

TMW - 10-30-2011 at 03:08 PM

Wealth Income and Power.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

TMW - 10-30-2011 at 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

BTW TW, you don't believe that the USA ranks 2nd worst in the world in wealth disparity? Look it up genius.

OK you want facts here they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...

He said the USA was #2 and for me look it up, I did and the truth be told the USA is not #2 or 3 or 4 or 20th etc. Mitchman lied.

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
If the government would have stayed out of the way, then Madoff (entrepreneur extraordinaire) would still be working his magic. There is a valid place for government Barry.

Quote:

Absolutely true, rt----------and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I (and the right) just want well thought out and necessary rules and laws put in place (which we mostly already have) and then vigorously enforced using reason, but not a threat of multible new rules and regs like the Admin has promised (and are coming), many not really run by the business community for input. Until we know the "rules of the road" we (business) will NOT invest and hire-----would you??? I don't know how many times the righties have to say this, but we will keep saying it until the folks quit saying that "the GOP wants no rules". What we want is an easing of the impending regulations, many of which will put a real damper on the economy moving ahead at the pace it normally does after a recession.

Junk like Madoff will always happen, but should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (which it was). You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and bring much to a grinding halt, or slowdown like now.

Lordy, I feel like a parrot------repeating myself over and over and over-----------------ad nauseum, but I guess that is the only way.

Barry

income inequality map view

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 03:24 PM

From the Atlantic (yes, liberal media that presents unvarnished truth)

Viewed comparatively, U.S. income inequality is even worse than you might expect. Perfect comparisons across the world's hundred-plus economies would be impossible -- standards of living, the price of staples, social services, and other variables all mean that relative poverty feels very different from one country to another. But, in absolute terms, the gulf between rich and poor is still telling. Income inequality can be measured and compared using something called the Gini coefficient, a century-old formula that measures national economies on a scale from 0.00 to 0.50, with 0.50 being the most unequal. The Gini coefficient is reliable enough that the CIA world factbook uses it. Here's a map of their data, with the most unequal countries in red and the most equal in green.

The U.S., in purple with a Gini coefficient of 0.450, ranks near the extreme end of the inequality scale. Looking for the other countries marked in purple gives you a quick sense of countries with comparable income inequality, and it's an unflattering list: Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda, Ecuador. A number are currently embroiled in or just emerging from deeply destabilizing conflicts, some of them linked to income inequality: Mexico, Côte d'Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Serbia.

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by mtgoat666]

rts551 - 10-30-2011 at 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

I see. You want rules and laws from our government, As long as they benefit yourself. "Well thought out" As you interpret it , right? (oops).

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 03:59 PM

TW, what are you talking about, which graph or stats are referring that shows me as a liar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distributi...

Take a look at this link for the GINI coefficient for wealth. The USA is at the lower right of the page with a GINI cofefficient of .801 which is second to Switzerland at .803. Forgive me for excluding Zimbabwe at .845

2nd REminder, TW, talking about WEALTH disparity of the USA versus other countries of world, NOT INCOME disparity. Get it straight. Not at all sure what your are looking at.

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

[Edited on 10-30-2011 by MitchMan]

Cypress - 10-30-2011 at 04:08 PM

The Latino's can vote for whomever they want. Obama? Why not. He's a loser. They've been voting for losers for more generations than I can count.

MitchMan - 10-30-2011 at 04:19 PM

No, McCain, Palin, and the Republican party are losers.

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

I see. You want rules and laws from our government, As long as they benefit yourself. "Well thought out" As you interpret it , right? (oops).

Yep, but leave out the "benefit myself" part as I am not a small business man-------I am retired 15 years now. But yes, I would benefit second hand (as everybody will) when the economy takes off as I do invest in Corporations that will soar.

Barry

David K - 10-30-2011 at 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
No, McCain, Palin, and the Republican party are losers.

and because they lost in 2008, we ALL lost now!!!

Cypress - 10-30-2011 at 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
No, McCain, Palin, and the Republican party are losers.

Silly!

mtgoat666 - 10-30-2011 at 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
The Latino's can vote for whomever they want. Obama? Why not. He's a loser. They've been voting for losers for more generations than I can count.

well, due to policies of whites like you, cypress, us latinos could not vote in most states until just 2 or 3 generations ago.

can you count to 3?

oxxo - 10-30-2011 at 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.But yes, I would benefit second hand (as everybody will) when the economy takes off as I do invest in Corporations that will soar.

Barry

Barry, if you are not interested in substantiating your political and social views with facts and stats, why don't you school me in how to make 14% ROI in the stock market as you say you do? I'm always looking for a way to make an easy buck! :light:

Then I would teach the bottom 40% how to do the same thing. What better way to improve their life? Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life.

DENNIS - 10-30-2011 at 08:14 PM

Wonderful. 18 pages of crap that has not one thing to do with Baja. You guys have outdone yourselves. :!:

Barry A. - 10-30-2011 at 08:45 PM

Dennis---------It's not "crap", and it effects Baja as well as every other place in the world.

Oxxo (I think) ---- The MSCI WORLD INDEX has averaged that amount (14.9%) annually long term prior to late 2007. Obviously, with the down turn of the recent past it is a little lower now, but I can't seem to find out what it is now (but I did not look too hard, either). Find a portfolio manager that uses the MSCI WORLD as their benchmark, check to see if they match it, or better yet 'beat it' long term, and invest with him/her and let them do the work. That is what I do. I use the services of KEN FISHER INVESTMENTS, and have for some time. I also use the info from Fisher to manage my self-managed portfolio, and pretty much duplicate his returns.

Make sure that your money is held in a separate acct. from your Manager (like Schwab) so that you don't have a "Berney Madoff". experience.

That's it. http://www.liquida.com/page/20635268/

If you decide to go with FISHER, let him know that I sent you as he pays me to refer people to him. :lol:

(I am serious)

incomes of the 1% vs the 99%----http://www.liquida.com/page/28419270/

US Census info----http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/incpovhlth/2010/index.html

Barry

[Edited on 10-31-2011 by Barry A.]

[Edited on 10-31-2011 by Barry A.]

[Edited on 10-31-2011 by Barry A.]

oxxo - 10-31-2011 at 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Find a portfolio manager that uses the MSCI WORLD as their benchmark, check to see if they match it, or better yet 'beat it' long term, and invest with him/her and let them do the work.

Thanks Barry, I will do that and give it a whirl. If it works, then I can teach the less fortunate than I, to do the same thing. It doesn't cost me anything and yet it improves the lives of others. I guess that's the difference betqween a liberal and a conservative.

Quote:

If you decide to go with FISHER, let him know that I sent you as he pays me to refer people to him. :lol:

(I am serious)

No, I am going to randomly pick one of the unemployed at Occupy Wall Street as my referral. No offense and I hope you understand. If the system works for that person, then I would tell them to pick another unemployed person as their referral, not I. That way the profits keep circulating. When it comes down to it, maybe that's the real difference between a liberal and a conservative.

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

If you decide to go with FISHER, let him know that I sent you as he pays me to refer people to him. :lol:

(I am serious)

Using someone else as a "referral" is an excellent idea, but unfortunately for legal reasons that won't work. I have a written agreement with Fisher Investments about referring prospective clients to them, and compensation is circuitous and only occurs when FI actually excepts a new client, and even then I am not directly paid--------my portfolio is enhanced, and/or Fee's waived, or something like that---------I can't remember exactly how that works, but it is complicated because of numerous regulations.

Good Luck.

Barry

Iflyfish - 10-31-2011 at 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You know what people?:

The liberals are always going to blame business (corporations) and want to take other peoples' money (taxes) so a big nanny government can take care of them and their new age projects (global warming, green whatever, close public lands to the public, etc.). In power, they want to get as many people to be receiving government aid as possible, as an insurance card for their re-election.

The conservatives are always going to blame big government and want to keep what they worked hard for, and get people off their butts or back to their families for help. They believe the constitution isn't something that needs to be changed, but instead is the instructions for how this republic is to be operated. Government's duties are limited to protecting the people from force or fraud and to create an atmosphere that allows business to prosper and create oportunity for everyone.

Liberals believe compassion is people receiving government assistance.

Conservatives believe compassion is people no longer needing government assistance!

Maybe some of you never realized that conservatives are the 'good folks' who want America to be better for EVERYONE or just fell for the Michael Moore types that say how bad America is?

One thing for sure, I don't think liberals are the 'open minded' bunch who seek truth, because when facts are provided, they always go back to the same old name calling.

If George Bush spending a billion dollars on bailouts was bad, how does Obama spended 3 billion or more make it good???

It is easy, but you have to wake up some day and proclaim your independence.

The more money taken from you (taxes), the less freedom you have.

One party wants you to keep more of your money (and use it, which creates jobs), and the other party wants you to give government more of your money (or take it from people who earned it).

I wish we could all be friends, and do what we love, and help each other, too. We don't need someone 3,000 miles away pretending to be our friend, telling us what to do, and replacing local communities with federal control.

Choose Freedom!

No Reply Required, but think about it... before we loose any more of this once great and free country!

Thank you for your time.
David
(I ask that if you do respond to this post, copy none or all of it, and not a just piece, out of context)

David

The "good folks" have opposed all intervention in global warming claiming it does not exist. This head in the sand belief, funded by Corporate Interests, has inhibited the development of technology to fight this very real problem allowing Europe and Asia to eat our lunch in those fields.

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_SKEPTI...
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.
Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.
One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.
Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.
Edited for brevity.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 10-31-2011 at 10:05 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Key proposals from the Republican presidential candidates might make for good campaign fodder. But independent analyses raise serious questions about those plans and their ability to cure the nation's ills in two vital areas, the economy and housing.

Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
Government and industry studies support his view.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_QUESTI...

Iflyfish

oxxo - 10-31-2011 at 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Using someone else as a "referral" is an excellent idea, but unfortunately for legal reasons that won't work. I have a written agreement with Fisher Investments about referring prospective clients to them, and compensation is circuitous and only occurs when FI actually excepts a new client, and even then I am not directly paid--------my portfolio is enhanced, and/or Fee's waived, or something like that---------I can't remember exactly how that works, but it is complicated because of numerous regulations.

Barry, stop making excuses. You are going to get some benefit from a referral, regardless of what the actual agreement is. Take that referral fee (however it is paid) in a like amount of money, pick an unemployed person at random, and help them invest it in the same manner as when you started out. It doesn't cost you anything in your portfolio. A referral fee is in effect "free" money to you. Help someone who is less fortunate than you by teaching them how to invest. Yes, let's get everyone off the public social assistance programs by teaching them how to be successful on their own.

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 10:28 AM

Fish-------I just read that article cited and "linked" above------I saw no input from the Supply-Side of the issue----NONE!!!

To me, without both sides being presented, it is simply an interesting article from one side of the arguement. I would need to read comments and testimony from the Art Laffer group of economists before making ANY decision on the validity of what this article is saying.

As for "Climate Change"-------yes, it is happening, and it will continue to happen as it always has. Do you really think that the cost benefit ratio of "man" trying to fight it is exceptable? I don't.

Barry

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

I have tried to do that, several times-----help people, that is. I am not a patient man, nor would I be a good teacher. In ALL cases people agreed to do what I said I thought they should do, and then did nothing!!! I even once called a friend here in Redding from Hawaii when the Market made a dramatic shift, telling her NOW is the time to shift your money from "cash" into the Market---------she said "YES, OK, I will do it"-------and later I found she did nothing. Very discouraging. But I still tell people my story, and my beliefs, and then what they do with that info is totally up to them. I don't even want to know.

By the way, so far I have NOT been able to steer anybody to FISHER that actually became a client------many people are soooooo hesitant to do much of anything to help themselves, apparently------an attitude that I think is reinforced by the mainstream media, and politicians of the liberal pursuation. All very frustrating as I see them flounder and sink further into dispair, knowing how they could reverse that. (sigh)

Barry

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 11:00 AM

Since I brought up Ken Fisher's name in previous posts I thought I should do some research on the net to see if there were any negative voices---------WOW, yes there are!!! There was one site that had dozens of folks howling that "Fisher lost me money"-----all centered around the period between mid-2007 to late 2008 and into 2009. Duhhhhhhhhhhhh, EVERYBODY (almost) in the Market during that time "lost money"--------what in the world did these people expect??????? And then some proceed to disect what happened by spending hours researching all the 'what if's' and seeing where Fisher "went wrong", and then they actually publish their "findings" on the net, or to magazines, all crying "foullllll" and "how nasty and despicable" this "fraud" is---"this Fisher guy"-----"if not a crook, then certainly a despicable human being for misleading all these poor unfortunate folks that came to him" for God-Like wisdom. Good Gawd, what garbage!!!!!

Amazing what people get upset about, and then instantly want to blame somebody else-------and cry "sue, sue, sue". I could not keep from laughing-------these folks must ALL be Democrats, but of course I have no proof of that.

Just wanted you all to be aware---------FISHER is not God!!!! :lol:

Barry

JoeJustJoe - 10-31-2011 at 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Dennis---------It's not "crap", and it effects Baja as well as every other place in the world.

Oxxo (I think) ---- The MSCI WORLD INDEX has averaged that amount (14.9%) annually long term prior to late 2007. Obviously, with the down turn of the recent past it is a little lower now, but I can't seem to find out what it is now (but I did not look too hard, either). Find a portfolio manager that uses the MSCI WORLD as their benchmark, check to see if they match it, or better yet 'beat it' long term, and invest with him/her and let them do the work. That is what I do. I use the services of KEN FISHER INVESTMENTS, and have for some time. I also use the info from Fisher to manage my self-managed portfolio, and pretty much duplicate his returns.

Make sure that your money is held in a separate acct. from your Manager (like Schwab) so that you don't have a "Berney Madoff". experience.

That's it. http://www.liquida.com/page/20635268/

If you decide to go with FISHER, let him know that I sent you as he pays me to refer people to him. :lol:

Warning "Baja Nomad" members Barry A's so-called Ken Fisher investment strategies are very very risky, especially given the typical age of "Nomad" members since so many members are of retirement age, and shouldn't be in equities 100 percent like Ken Fisher, and Barry A claims he blindly follows Fisher's advice in his own portfolio.( a good rule of thumb is using the opposite of your age. If your 30 than perhaps 70 percent of your holdings should be in stocks, and if your 70 than only 30 percent of your holding should be in stocks depending on your risk factors. The rest put in fixed instruments like bonds, CDs, annuities safe from market risk, and even a little gold.)

It's especially bad to be 100 percent in stocks in this trading environment since Bush almost brought the USA to a full blown depression in 2007 and most growth stocks fell at least 50 percent until Obama stimulated the economy and the stocks came roaring back with US government, FED action, and program trading that propped up many US stocks.( US car companies are good examples

Many say the other shoe is ready to drop, and the US economy remains very shaky and economies around the world are even worse, and those smaller European countries if they go belly up can hurt financial markets in the US.

It's very careless to take a one size approach to all investors like Fisher Investments tends to do to make money for themselves, and could care less about their investors members. ( Ken Fisher does look like he is the real deal, and knows a lot about trading stocks, but that doesn't mean the typical investor should blindly follow Fisher)

Stocks have historically been the best place to put your money like Real Estate, but look what happened to real estate. This is a whole new world, and past behavior on stocks doesn't guarantee future results. You need to thread carefully in this trading environment:

From Wikipedia where a Fisher salesman talked a retired client to roll the dice and put all her money in risky stocks, which promptly lost half their value, and went against the retired women's own investment goals:
____________________________________________

Controversies related to Fisher Investments Inc.

On July 7, 2011, Bloomberg News reported that, according to an interim arbitration award, "Fisher Investments Inc. may have to pay damages of $376,075 for breaching its fiduciary duty to a retired investor", Sharyn Silverstein. According to the arbitrator, Karen Wilcutts, Silverstein contacted Fisher Investments to request a copy of a free book. According to Bloomberg: "In conversations with Fisher representatives in 2007 Silverstein made it clear that she and her husband, Seth, intended to take withdrawals from their investments after her husband retired, which he was planning to do at the end of that year, the [interim award] said. When her assigned investment counselor with the firm drew up her recommended portfolio... he entered that she had no income needs from her portfolio and that her only objective was to increase the value of her investments at the time of her death. The Silversteins have no children and therefore have no need to leave an inheritance, the award said." Fisher Investments pressured Silverstein, aged 64, into liquidating all of her fixed income investments, and investing them in equities. In the arbitrator's words,

Fisher simply made the same recommendation to Ms. Silverstein that it makes to the vast majority of its clients: 100 percent equities benchmarked to the MSCI World (MXWO) index.

Silverstein reportedly lost about $376,075 of her initial investment of $876,357.

[Edited on 10-31-2011 by JoeJustJoe]

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 11:42 AM

Good post, JoeJoe, and certainly a legit point of view.

I went to Fisher BECAUSE he mirrored my phylosophy on investing, not because I was "following" him. Yes, it is more risky than mattress stuffing, but most "conventional-wisdom" investments for we "older" folks are a guaranteed way to slowly and painfully lose money over time, thru inflation, and I think flawed. But you are certainly right that many can't stand the volatility of staying fully invested, but that is an emotional decision, not a sound financial decision, to me at least. I want max. return for my invested buck, and I maintain a 20 year plus time horizon so don't really care about Market fluxuations as long as long term I make money. I only take 3% of my gross investments out each year to live on, and the principal it will certainly out-last me unless the entire Market blows up (which is possible, of course), outlast my wife, and hopefully my kids and grandkids if properly invested (like I hope I have done). If the Market blows up, then all bets are off, and I am not sure I want to be around if that happens.

But, your points are certainly the conventional wisdom and well stated.

Barry

Peligrosa

MrBillM - 10-31-2011 at 11:44 AM

WARNING !

Danger - Danger - Danger.

Taking advice from Lebanese Land-Scam Con-Artists is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than anything else one might do.

mtgoat666 - 10-31-2011 at 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Good post, JoeJoe, and certainly a legit point of view.

I went to Fisher BECAUSE he mirrored my phylosophy on investing, not because I was "following" him. Yes, it is more risky than mattress stuffing, but most "conventional-wisdom" investments for we "older" folks are a guaranteed way to slowly and painfully lose money over time, thru inflation, and I think flawed. But you are certainly right that many can't stand the volatility of staying fully invested, but that is an emotional decision, not a sound financial decision, to me at least. I want max. return for my invested buck, and I maintain a 20 year plus time horizon so don't really care about Market fluxuations as long as long term I make money. I only take 3% of my gross investments out each year to live on, and the principal it will certainly out-last me unless the entire Market blows up (which is possible, of course), outlast my wife, and hopefully my kids and grandkids if properly invested (like I hope I have done). If the Market blows up, then all bets are off, and I am not sure I want to be around if that happens.

But, your points are certainly the conventional wisdom and well stated.

Barry

barry,
you approach is sound, but you are probably in unique position with a govt pension to fall back on. most people don't have defined benefit pension plans to fall back on when wall st robber baron brokers game the market next time to fleece their clients.

nothing like selling mortgage-backed securities to your investment clients at same time you are betting on the securities to fail -- real win-win scenario there!

Iflyfish - 10-31-2011 at 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Fish-------I just read that article cited and "linked" above------I saw no input from the Supply-Side of the issue----NONE!!!

To me, without both sides being presented, it is simply an interesting article from one side of the arguement. I would need to read comments and testimony from the Art Laffer group of economists before making ANY decision on the validity of what this article is saying.

As for "Climate Change"-------yes, it is happening, and it will continue to happen as it always has. Do you really think that the cost benefit ratio of "man" trying to fight it is exceptable? I don't.

Barry

In fairness to Barry A. I post a link to the Laffer Group and its history of Supply Side Economics.

http://web2.uconn.edu/cunningham/econ309/lafferpdf.pdf

Read here about the impact of the Bush Tax Cuts on Economic Growth.
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/maximum-utilit...

Laffer makes interesting reading and I would encourage people to take the time to read him. Theories are one thing and outcomes are another.

Iflyfish

mtgoat666 - 10-31-2011 at 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
WARNING !

Danger - Danger - Danger.

Taking advice from Lebanese... is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than anything else one might do.

please explain why lebanese-american advice is less trustworthy than irish-american advice.

wessongroup - 10-31-2011 at 12:06 PM

Thanks to all ... a very interesting discussion on "investing" approaches...

It is a big game... if ya play... and it's based on your tolerance to "risk"... some play loose ... other conservative...

Myself ... I'm conservative in my investing... go out of the market... Nov 2006..upon retirement..

can your employees afford to purchase your products?

mtgoat666 - 10-31-2011 at 12:34 PM

JoeJustJoe - 10-31-2011 at 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
WARNING !

Danger - Danger - Danger.

Taking advice from Lebanese... is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than anything else one might do.

please explain why lebanese-american advice is less trustworthy than irish-american advice.

Oh BTW JoeJustJoe(me) is not an Lebanese-American and You Goat aren't Mexican-American. Goat comes off as a white latte drinking liberal.

I'm a Chicano who was born in LA.

I have worked in the financial services department wearing many different hats over the years off and on, and I have seen it all and have heard it all too, and it's all mostly BS.

Nobody has a crystal ball, and it's rare the best money mangers could beat a blind folded monkey throwing darts and using that method to pick stocks. The monkey wins most of the time.

I'm pretty much out of the market right now, except for my current holding that I rarely sell. But I am pretty good at evaluating stocks, trading strategies, and potential scams. I can usually spot them miles away.

mtgoat666 - 10-31-2011 at 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
Goat comes off as a white latte drinking liberal.

is that an insult? or a compliment? or meant to be neutral descriptive?

what is bad about whites, lattes and liberals?

when does starbucks begin serving eggnog lattes??

Lebanese and Otras ?

MrBillM - 10-31-2011 at 01:35 PM

No Se ?

WHAT Mick is it offering financial wisdom ?

Take care there since, when listening to a Son of Erin, it's likely guaranteed NOT to be SOBER advice.

As to the Camel-Jockey Counsel, since we KNOW that's not Joe, no worries.

In fact, NOBODY is Joe. Whatever he IS, he ISN'T. Just ask.

Start by asking Jihad E. Salman in Temple City who Joe is. Or, Mazen, Haifa, Bahige, Faisal.

They won't know either.

Joe is only a Vaporous Chimera created from many "grotesquely disparate" sub-human parts.

Or, so I heard.

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

barry,
you approach is sound, but you are probably in unique position with a govt pension to fall back on. most people don't have defined benefit pension plans to fall back on when wall st robber baron brokers game the market next time to fleece their clients.

nothing like selling mortgage-backed securities to your investment clients at same time you are betting on the securities to fail -- real win-win scenario there!

Thanks, Goat----I appreciate that.

Yes, we each have very different circumstances, but I hope I never have to live off my Fed. pension alone ($1,423 net per month) as I get no Social Sec., and my wife's SS is only about $433 a month.

It's funny, I never faulted that "win-win" situation you refer too, with I think Goldman------it's called "hedging your bets" and it never surprised or upset me that they could be making moves to recoup losses in specific instruments while they sold those same instruments based on them making money for their clients----A bank will sell what the clients want, but they have to protect themselves also-------tis the nature of the Banking business, and makes good sense (tho it does "look bad" to the lay-person, apparently). Again, it was a "hedge" (i.e. protection )------and many do it, including me. I only invest in Gold long-term as a Hedge to help stableize my portfolio, not really to make money------worked good lately. In unstable Markets you HAVE to assume anything might happen, and prepare regardless of what "you think" will happen. Right??

barry

JoeJustJoe - 10-31-2011 at 03:04 PM

I wouldn't exactly call what Goldman Sach did was hedging it's bets. What it did was cover it's rear end while it sold some of it's best customers crap that it knew was toxic. The crime was not disclosing that information to it's clients.

These banksters belong in jail, but instead they only got their wrists slapped for show:

________________________

Here's the CliffsNotes version of the scandal: Back in 2007, Harvard-educated hedge-fund whiz John Paulson (no relation to then-Treasury secretary and former Goldman chief Hank Paulson) smartly decided the housing boom was a mirage. So he asked Goldman to put together a multibillion-dollar basket of crappy subprime investments that he could bet against. The bank gladly complied, taking a $15 million fee to do the deal and letting Paulson choose some of the toxic mortgages in the portfolio, which would come to be called Abacus.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?

What Paulson jammed into Abacus was mortgages lent to borrowers with low credit ratings, and mortgages from states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California that had recently seen wild home-price spikes. In metaphorical terms, Paulson was choosing, as sexual partners for future visitors to the Goldman bordello, a gang of IV drug users, Haitians and hemophiliacs, then buying life-insurance policies on the whole orgy. Goldman then turned around and sold this poisonous stuff to its customers as good, healthy investments.

Where Goldman broke the rules, according to the SEC, was in failing to disclose to its customers – in particular a German bank called IKB and a Dutch bank called ABN-AMRO – the full nature of Paulson's involvement with the deal. Neither investor knew that the portfolio they were buying into had essentially been put together by a financial arsonist who was rooting for it all to blow up.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-feds-vs-goldma...

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 04:03 PM

--------and Goldman's side of the story is (????????)

mtgoat666 - 10-31-2011 at 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
--------and Goldman's side of the story is (????????)

legal, but morally indefensible

moral of the story: never trust advice from broker, they have no fiduciary duty to you.

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 05:10 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Goat, maybe you are right. Never used a "broker" so don't really know.

Moral: "Beware the brokers in our lives", I guess. :tumble:

Sometimes I think a tiny few of NOMADS are that way, too. :lol:

barry

Iflyfish - 10-31-2011 at 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
--------and Goldman's side of the story is (????????)

"It's the profits stupid"

The purpose of Corporations is to make money. period

The only protection consumers have it the legitimate role of the government to regulate these Corporations. period

Pretty simple really.

Iflyfish

MitchMan - 10-31-2011 at 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
--------and Goldman's side of the story is (????????)

Barry, Barry, Barry. This Goldman Sach's story has been told over and over and over again. Where have you been? You sound like this is the first time you have heard this.

Maybe you need to hear Bernie Madoff's side of the story, or Kenneth Lay's side of the story? I don't know, maybe you need to hear Charlie Manson's side of the story before you can use your oh so deliberative judgement on what has been common knowledge to both sides of the liberal to right wing spectrum.

First you posit excuse after excuse not to study the issues, hide behind ignorance, then you pop off with this inane response. Unbelieveable!

Barry A. - 10-31-2011 at 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
--------and Goldman's side of the story is (????????)

Yes, I ALWAYS want to hear both sides of the story before I make up my mind-------my legal training, I suppose, and a pre-disposition that way. I read HELTER-SKELTER to understand what the "Manson" situation of all about, etc. etc..

My point, Mitch, is that both sides of a story should IMO be presented when there is an accusation, especially of this magnitude and nastiness!!! Yes, I have long known the "story" (duh) and there IS a Goldman side of all this--------you, and millions of others may not like or except that story, but it DOES exist. I heard it, and yes, I believe that it is plausable and understandable what Goldman did. That does not meen I condone it, but it CERTAINLY is not the abomination that most seem willing to believe.

This "thread" is long overdue for being moved over into OT if you ask me, and I am mostly responsible for that. We are just head-butting now, it seems to me.

Barry

happy halloween!

mtgoat666 - 11-1-2011 at 06:37 AM

Mengano - 11-1-2011 at 06:43 AM

mtgoat666 - 11-1-2011 at 07:17 AM

MitchMan - 11-1-2011 at 10:23 AM

Goat, you're the man.

Barry A. - 11-1-2011 at 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Goat, you're the man.

Maybe, but he is the "sick man" for sure.

I wish all the OWS protestors were as peaceful as that confused beauty tending her pumpkins.

Barry

MitchMan - 11-1-2011 at 11:24 AM

While, characteristically, you have no knowledge of whether or not the young lady is confused about anything, you voluntarily choose to disparage and undermine her peaceful expression; that's a kind of malice, Barry.

However, there's no confusion about the right wing's selfish undemocratic 'wish' that OWS protesters be muted, softly and silently pack up and go away instead of their emphasizing and publicly pointing out and condemning the immoral greed of those certain Wall Streeters that nearly caused the total collapse of the financial sector and the nation's economy.

Skeet/Loreto - 11-1-2011 at 11:56 AM

Mitch: Your words are as full of Bull Puckey as you are!!

The Economy of this Great County has not Collapsed!!!

The Financial Sector is still in Great Shape!! There is a small Blub in the Housing Sector, Loan markets etc.

I donot Wish that anything happens to the Dumb Nuts trying to make a poit as Wall Street Occupants!
They do not have the brains or Guts to get anything accumished in their Childess ways.!

Poor Peaceful Expression{ Throw Rocks and Dirt, and spitting on Policemen}They should all be Soundley Whipped in the public Square and sent Home to their Mothers.!!!

Skeet

wessongroup - 11-1-2011 at 11:58 AM

http://tinyurl.com/4ywhhl3

64 year old janator laid, off with prostrate cancer.... should any consideration be given to an American citizen... before and illegal immigarant... just asking...

Would appear to me... this guy should be first in the line... drop the Dream Act... for the Government payment to illegal's for college's degree's ... and give this poor bastard some help...

[Edited on 11-1-2011 by wessongroup]

skeet, what is your advice to this guy?

mtgoat666 - 11-1-2011 at 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Mitch: Your words are as full of Bull Puckey as you are!!

The Economy of this Great County has not Collapsed!!!

The Financial Sector is still in Great Shape!! There is a small Blub in the Housing Sector, Loan markets etc.

I donot Wish that anything happens to the Dumb Nuts trying to make a poit as Wall Street Occupants!
They do not have the brains or Guts to get anything accumished in their Childess ways.!

Poor Peaceful Expression{ Throw Rocks and Dirt, and spitting on Policemen}They should all be Soundley Whipped in the public Square and sent Home to their Mothers.!!!

Skeet

what about this protester, skeet?

Barry A. - 11-1-2011 at 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
While, characteristically, you have no knowledge of whether or not the young lady is confused about anything, you voluntarily choose to disparage and undermine her peaceful expression; that's a kind of malice, Barry.

However, there's no confusion about the right wing's selfish undemocratic 'wish' that OWS protesters be muted, softly and silently pack up and go away instead of their emphasizing and publicly pointing out and condemning the immoral greed of those certain Wall Streeters that nearly caused the total collapse of the financial sector and the nation's economy.

The "pot calling the kettle black"???

I intended no "malice"----you are "assuming" that, which in itself is a negative reaction. I in no way "disparage" or "undermine" that peaceful young lady------to the contrary, it is a beautiful picture.

I have eyes, Mitch---------and I see her there in the picture & am making an assumption since she obviously is a OWS--------in my opinion, she would not be there unless she is "confused". I know of no "right wingers" that are calling for "muting" the OWS protestors, NONE!! Where you getting that one, Mitch? ( or are you just assuming that one?). I actually don't have any opinion of the OWS folks other than I mostly don't agree with much of what they are yelling, and I generally personally don't like these types of demonstrations, but in no way want them to lose their rights to do it. I do wish they would think ahead and clean up (litterally) their act tho.

Cheers, Barry

Skeet/Loreto - 11-1-2011 at 12:34 PM

Goat;

It is plain and simple: He is a Liar with a Trumped up set of Bull Puckey. Printed on a sign that the media will pick up and spread around. Goat you should know better thatn to beleive all the Puckey that is trown about.

MitchMan - 11-1-2011 at 01:10 PM

Skeet, there are so many inaccuracies in your post, I have no choice but to pronounce you "Skeet/Looney".

Barry, unless you are a mind reader and have talked to her, how do you know she is confused? And, please, don't you confuse actual knowledge with inference, opinion or guess work... something that you do with almost every post you make. Now that's confusion, Barry.

One thing I have learned from this thread

tripledigitken - 11-1-2011 at 01:25 PM

That a public servant, retiring with a pension less than some Social Security checks, is living a very comfortable life. Comfortable enough that in all likelihood his beneficiaries will come into a nice inheritance.

How does this happen?

Paycheck by paycheck over decades he saved and invested. In down cycles and boom times, just kept socking it away. I'll guess he didn't have a new car every two years, maybe not as big a house as some of his friends, yet he kept saving. He has managed to now have a very large nest egg. A nest egg that will carry him through his retirement years.

A toast to you, Barry!

Barry A. - 11-1-2011 at 01:54 PM

Thank you, Ken.

The ONLY "new car" we have EVER owned is our 2007 X-terra and the ONLY reason we bought it new was that I could not find one like I wanted "used" :lol:

. It has been a very good life, and all your assumptions are correct. That is really all I have ever been trying to convey---------it CAN be done!!!

As the Goat has been known to say: "Yes we can" :lol:

Thanks again, and viva Baja.

Barry

norte - 11-1-2011 at 06:38 PM

wow this aught to get some attention. funded by th petroleum industry

http://www.pekintimes.com/opinions/columnists/x1535092026/Ge...

And mr digit. what Barry says is his salary was very good on the public dole while patrolling for rabits.

krafty - 11-1-2011 at 10:16 PM

Goat and Mitch-bravo to you both-the divide betwitxt the GOP and Libs is mind boggling, and even having a discussion is like beating your head against a wall, so again, kudos to you both. I applaud you Barry for some fine financing. I wish you would not assume anything from the posted picture of that girl. She is not confused, and there are millions out there just like her. OWS-it's not going away, and it may prove helpful to figure out why they are there rather than just stating your general personal dislike for these demonstrations.

political financing is legalized bribery, so we need full disclosure

mtgoat666 - 11-2-2011 at 05:20 AM

conflict of interest?

we live with system of legalized bribery, so why not require congressman to reveal who bribed them??????

mtgoat666 - 11-2-2011 at 05:28 AM

mtgoat666 - 11-2-2011 at 05:36 AM

David K - 11-2-2011 at 09:11 AM

Goat, can you learn to re-size your photo so it doesn't ruin the whole page for everyone else? Oh, and for balance, how about posting a democrat with the money they get for corporations and labor unions?

rts551 - 11-2-2011 at 09:27 AM

David

Looks like you lost one of your faithful. And look who the study was funded by. How do you figure?

Quote:

Originally posted by norte
wow this aught to get some attention. funded by th petroleum industry

http://www.pekintimes.com/opinions/columnists/x1535092026/Ge...

And mr digit. what Barry says is his salary was very good on the public dole while patrolling for rabits.

MitchMan - 11-2-2011 at 10:05 AM

Thanks, Krafty. Good stuff, Goat, using facts and reality is the way to go.

BajaGringo - 11-2-2011 at 10:10 AM

All this talk of class warfare is a bit off base IMHO. I would never suggest to anyone that I am a spokesperson for the 99% but I do think this represents what a lot of us out here feel...

desertcpl - 11-2-2011 at 10:58 AM

Ron

that photos says it all

MitchMan - 11-2-2011 at 11:15 AM

Copy that, BajaGringo.

I think it is a grave mistake to blame the current economic malaise and the near collapse of the financial sector on the rich and wealthy as a 100% guilty homogenous monolithic group. There are definitely specific players that are in fact directly responsible for our problems, but they are a relatively small number of the group of rich and wealthy and other of those guilty players are not among the rich and wealthy. Many of the bad players are CEOs and executives of certain businesses and certainly the bad players are certain politicians and members of congress both past and present. Also, many bad players are pundits. Also, most of the lobbying industry are bad players as well as certain think tanks.

The use of the term "class warfare" is a term that is brought up by the right wing, a grossly false assertion, and an intentional classic disingenuous and intellectually dishonest abuse of the fallacy in logic known as the "strawman" argument.

The lady in the wheel chair has it exactly right. The rich and wealthy per se are not the problem, the bad players are, and it has been these bad players that have been successful in using campaign contributions, public messaging, lobbyists, and the revolving door to coopt government and the economy that led directly to the economic problems.

Bottom line, the single best and most effective remedy, after all is said and done, is to get money out of politics. That way, we might get more statesmen in office and fewer lap dog politicians.

[Edited on 11-2-2011 by MitchMan]

toneart - 11-2-2011 at 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A. I do wish they would think ahead and clean up (litterally) their act tho.

Cheers, Barry

Here is the OWS effort in our community. This kind of peaceful and respectful demonstrations is typical of the movement nation wide. The corporate controlled media (can you say Rupert Murdock?) would have you believe otherwise. Cops busting heads and initiating violence is what breeds violence. They are only helping to alienate more ordinary citizens who then join the movement. It is happening around the world and there is no stopping it!:

"Please forward this email to all your friends. Talk to 10 friends in
person today and tomorrow about the rally. Talk to one stranger about
the rally.

Our numbers are significant! The OWS movement is ALREADY showing
tangible change GLOBALLY, and this has been achieved largely by
visibility alone! Nobody can ignore the fundamental problem with the
current distribution of wealth. Come out and meet your fellow
neighbors, patriots, hard working community members to show solidarity
with people over the world standing up for humanity.

Please be sure to respect local businesses, do not park in front of
stores and save parking closest to the rally location for elderly and
disabled. Use parking in the Safeway parking lot, stretch out over to
the other end of the Brunswick center from Rite-Aid down to past
Grocery Outlet. Also park behind the wells fargo.

This is not a direct action, we are peacefully and lawfully assembling
to exercise our 1st amendment rights. Our code is strictly
NON-VIOLENT. We will not condone vandalism of our community including
the BofA on the corner.

We encourage all demonstrators to make CASH local purchases from our
local merchants! Gather with friends afterward to continue the
ongoing discussion.

WE ARE THE 99%"
_____________________

mtgoat666 - 11-2-2011 at 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Bottom line, the single best and most effective remedy, after all is said and done, is to get money out of politics. That way, we might get more statemen in office and fewer lap dog politicians.

the point is that the US is now a democracy on paper only. the campaign financing system and money influence in politics has caused the government to morph into a corporate/special interest oligarchy.

the gop and democrats are just mechanistic political lackeys of the corporate oligarchs. the occupy wall street movement is the last hope, the last bastion of democracy. if populism cannot overthrow the oligarch, then the next logical step is revolution. yes, overthrow of the oligarch may make cushy corporate jobs more tenuous, but as they say in new hampshire: live free or die! and in other words: no pain, no gain!

posted on CNN

desertcpl - 11-2-2011 at 11:41 AM

As for the banks, as companies, we've all heard the stories. Goldman, Sachs in 2008 – this was the same year the bank reported $2.9 billion in profits, and paid out over $10 billion in compensation -- paid just $14 million in taxes, a 1% tax rate.

MitchMan - 11-2-2011 at 12:32 PM

Quote:

mtgoat666
the point is that the US is now a democracy on paper only. the campaign financing system and money influence in politics has caused the government to morph into a corporate/special interest oligarchy.

the gop and democrats are just mechanistic political lackeys of the corporate oligarchs....

Lotta truth in that.

A good thing would be that the OWS protest/movement would serve to stimulate enough of the 99% to vote better. It's all about voting in the right people that will do better in their jobs, do better in congress instead of being so darn political/partisan, do better in appointing the right heads of government agencies that agree with the mission of those agencies - not serve to defeat its mission, and vote for the right legislation and policies.

Between the paralyzing partisanship and the money in politics and wrong headed messaging about the role of government and about economics, we, as a country, are going to continue to spiral downward as the lopsided concentration of income and wealth at the top continues to worsen, further eroding our future, our security, and our position in the world.

[Edited on 11-2-2011 by MitchMan]

BajaGringo - 11-2-2011 at 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
the point is that the US is now a democracy on paper only. the campaign financing system and money influence in politics has caused the government to morph into a corporate/special interest oligarchy.

I 100% agree which is why I have lost all hope for a political solution for the country. It truly saddens me to admit that but the deck is stacked...

mtgoat666 - 11-2-2011 at 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
A good thing would be that the OWS protest/movement would serve to stimulate enough of the 99% to vote better.

not possible to "vote better." the 2 party system effectively excludes change, limits you to party hack candidates that perpetuate current system. very rare for outsider to get past the gates.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7