-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
CountryBoys's Account Talk
- Thread starter CountryBoy
- Start date
justbizness45
Member
I hear you. I did last week. I am strongly considering getting a permit to carry so I can be grandfathered in by any new laws before that is also taken away.
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Yeah JB,
I got one a couple of months ago, hoping I'll be gf'd in also. It'll be hard not to with so many being acquired. Got a brand new Sig 9mm for $500, I couldn't believe it. and it shoots sweet.
Now if the markets will only play nice this week. :laugh:CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.
In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.
The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html
Now I guess we know, and when she knew what she said she didn't know, lol and what she has continually lied about. She and her fellow libs are nothing but a pack of liars and you can probably throw in the Reps with that crowd of liars. I wonder if the American people will ever get it and develop the nads to vote these people out of office. My money says no, cause most Americans now only care where their next bHo check is coming from and not what's best. If the wicked witch of the west was a Rep, the libs would've been screaming for an investigation/commission, but they'll hust turn a blind eye to this. Can you say hipocrasy, can I'm not sure I can spell it.
Just another example of the dual rules for people depending on who and what you believe.
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.
In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.
The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html
Now I guess we know, and when she knew what she said she didn't know, lol and what she has continually lied about. She and her fellow libs are nothing but a pack of liars and you can probably throw in the Reps with that crowd of liars. I wonder if the American people will ever get it and develop the nads to vote these people out of office. My money says no, cause most Americans now only care where their next bHo check is coming from and not what's best. If the wicked witch of the west was a Rep, the libs would've been screaming for an investigation/commission, but they'll hust turn a blind eye to this. Can you say hipocrasy, can I'm not sure I can spell it.
Just another example of the dual rules for people depending on who and what you believe.
Last edited:
CountryBoy
Well-known member
I don't care how much I hate a person, but I would never wish or laugh at a person's health or enjoy a good laugh at hoping someone has severe health problems, but this president seems to revel in the hope of a fellow American who disagrees with him dying. It’s amazing how much the libs and his followers whined about Rush’s comment, yet they wish death on anyone who doesn’t toe bHo socialistic line. They are disgusting, hate-filled liars and hypocrites.
It just never ends and his highness makes it's so easy, and yet so many defend his obvious hatred and bitterness towards anyone who dare question him or express a different POV.
Mabe it's because I've been there and knows how it feels, but their comes a time that as Pres, you got to have some nads and not express pleasure at another American suffering. He's just no class thug. We all know how he feels about folks that question his brilliance.
CB
It just never ends and his highness makes it's so easy, and yet so many defend his obvious hatred and bitterness towards anyone who dare question him or express a different POV.
Mabe it's because I've been there and knows how it feels, but their comes a time that as Pres, you got to have some nads and not express pleasure at another American suffering. He's just no class thug. We all know how he feels about folks that question his brilliance.
CB
Boghie
Well-known member
I Think We are Starting to 'Get It'...
CountryBoy,
Although I think I am firmly planted on your side of the court, I do think the center and some of the center-left are starting to 'Get It'.
When Michael Barone (not someone normally associated with being a bombast) calls the the Obama Presidency a Thugocracy I think the word is getting out.
It's also funny watching reality hit the 'Reality World' like a two-by-four...
What we have to watch out for is the half-baked commentary from the right side of the spectrum. Some on the right are taking sound bites and rumors and running with them. Not everything is catastrophic and/or conspiratorial – much can be explained via incompetence and ignorance :cheesy:
CountryBoy,
Although I think I am firmly planted on your side of the court, I do think the center and some of the center-left are starting to 'Get It'.
When Michael Barone (not someone normally associated with being a bombast) calls the the Obama Presidency a Thugocracy I think the word is getting out.
It's also funny watching reality hit the 'Reality World' like a two-by-four...
What we have to watch out for is the half-baked commentary from the right side of the spectrum. Some on the right are taking sound bites and rumors and running with them. Not everything is catastrophic and/or conspiratorial – much can be explained via incompetence and ignorance :cheesy:
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Re: I Think We are Starting to 'Get It'...
Boghie,
I think you are right that some are starting to get it, I just wish they were more vocal. To me incompetence and ignorance is just as bad and dangerous as a conspiracy and if the far right wing comes out with some half baked idea full of half truths, I'll call BS on them also.
I'm for the facts and truth regardless of what side pols are on, we sure don't have much of that in DC these days. That's why we're in the mess we're in now and you have to draw the line somewhere, you either have principals and ethics or you don't and I sure don't see much of that these days.
CB
Boghie,
I think you are right that some are starting to get it, I just wish they were more vocal. To me incompetence and ignorance is just as bad and dangerous as a conspiracy and if the far right wing comes out with some half baked idea full of half truths, I'll call BS on them also.
I'm for the facts and truth regardless of what side pols are on, we sure don't have much of that in DC these days. That's why we're in the mess we're in now and you have to draw the line somewhere, you either have principals and ethics or you don't and I sure don't see much of that these days.
CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Boghie
Well-known member
CountryBoy,
If you got to know me you would probably be hard pressed to find someone right of me - at least fiscally.
Given that, I think the Bush tax code is fair. Excepting, of course, that it is too complex and full of loopholes for Congressional and Administration bubbas. It is folks like you and me that cannot really take advantate of the loopholes. Regardless, after 2003 I didn't squeeze every last dime out of the tax code since I thought I paid a fair share and the effort had diminishing returns.
Now, not so much. I am preparing for the new tax code. I will be ready to be a very rich retiree who paid less in tax when the tax rates went up.
However, I don't think there is any real reason to cut taxes. Just leave them where they are at. That is a problem with the right side of the line. I don't think folks care if the rate is cut a point, but they will care if the debt bloats $200 Billion because of it. We are fine with it as it is - but, I think all should pay some. Conversely, as stated before, I will not pay more in taxes without a fight. Even being a gubmint man I have very little confidence that they can spend it well. Actually, because I am a gubmint man:cheesy: And, I have no desire to help fund the bloated gubmint President Obama wants me to pay for.
Thus, I am preppin't to 'Go Gault':toung: in my own small way...
If you got to know me you would probably be hard pressed to find someone right of me - at least fiscally.
Given that, I think the Bush tax code is fair. Excepting, of course, that it is too complex and full of loopholes for Congressional and Administration bubbas. It is folks like you and me that cannot really take advantate of the loopholes. Regardless, after 2003 I didn't squeeze every last dime out of the tax code since I thought I paid a fair share and the effort had diminishing returns.
Now, not so much. I am preparing for the new tax code. I will be ready to be a very rich retiree who paid less in tax when the tax rates went up.
However, I don't think there is any real reason to cut taxes. Just leave them where they are at. That is a problem with the right side of the line. I don't think folks care if the rate is cut a point, but they will care if the debt bloats $200 Billion because of it. We are fine with it as it is - but, I think all should pay some. Conversely, as stated before, I will not pay more in taxes without a fight. Even being a gubmint man I have very little confidence that they can spend it well. Actually, because I am a gubmint man:cheesy: And, I have no desire to help fund the bloated gubmint President Obama wants me to pay for.
Thus, I am preppin't to 'Go Gault':toung: in my own small way...
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Boghie,
I couldn't agree with ya more. I want to see spending cut and cut across the board. I also think that every elected political official, especially elected to congress should have an audit along with the folks nominated for cabinet positions. As we've seen, they feel they are above the law, in particular, when it comes to paying taxes.
And as far as our Gov't goes, this is the first time, I've really feared the power our gov't yields and seems willing to abuse it on the common citizen.
We've also discussed ways to "Go Gault" now and as a retiree and are beginning to look into ways that it could be done in our position. We're just in the beginning stages of this, as we've become fed up with those that are gaming the system to extract the max tax funds without producing anything.
CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
I don't care how much I hate a person, but I would never wish or laugh at a person's health or enjoy a good laugh at hoping someone has severe health problems, but this president seems to revel in the hope of a fellow American who disagrees with him dying. It’s amazing how much the libs and his followers whined about Rush’s comment, yet they wish death on anyone who doesn’t toe bHo socialistic line. They are disgusting, hate-filled liars and hypocrites.
It just never ends and his highness makes it's so easy, and yet so many defend his obvious hatred and bitterness towards anyone who dare question him or express a different POV.
Mabe it's because I've been there and knows how it feels, but their comes a time that as Pres, you got to have some nads and not express pleasure at another American suffering. He's just no class thug. We all know how he feels about folks that question his brilliance.
CB
And one Brit's view of the ugliness of the above humor.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_h...a_sykes_joke_about_wanting_rush_limbaugh_dead
Video included and I gotta admit, except for bHo, the crowd didn't seeme to think much of the humor, but no one has spoke out yet. :laugh:
CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Don Corleone makes Arnold an offer he can't refuse, bought for and paid by the unions, payback time for the Don.
Demoting California
Unions hold the state's stimulus hostage
One of the biggest stories in politics earlier this year was about California's budget teetering on the edge of a $42-billion deficit abyss. It only staved off insolvency when its legislature ended three months of gridlock to pass a budget with steep tax hikes and spending cuts. Guess what the Obama Administration is doing? It is telling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that it will revoke nearly $7 billion in federal stimulus money unless the state restores legislated wage cuts for unionized health-care workers.
Obama Administration to federalism: Drop dead.
In its budget deal, California agreed to $74 million in wage cuts for unionized home health-care workers. The Service Employees International Union huffed to the higher power in Washington, which duly agreed to hold California's stimulus hostage.
Governor Schwarzenegger has sent a letter asking the feds to reconsider, noting the cuts were taken in response to "an unprecedented fiscal crisis." Even now the state faces an estimated cash-flow problem of some $17 billion by July.
Restoring the union money will require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, a task in California somewhat akin to moving the Sierra Nevadas. Still, it's worth noting where the Obama team ranks the political authority of a legislative enactment by the state of California versus the political clout of a union.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182572571502451.html
Just another example of his thuggery and mobster style politics. But we seem to accept the fact. So much for a state governing itself. Next on the hit lists the health and insurance industry, who'll be made a similiar offers. I believe the health industry was threatened today. And Gethner said over the weekend that thy want no more booms, so they'll have to keep the reins held tight so to much money will be made by any industry. Now that sounds an -ism.
I may have to invest in cement.
CB
Demoting California
Unions hold the state's stimulus hostage
One of the biggest stories in politics earlier this year was about California's budget teetering on the edge of a $42-billion deficit abyss. It only staved off insolvency when its legislature ended three months of gridlock to pass a budget with steep tax hikes and spending cuts. Guess what the Obama Administration is doing? It is telling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that it will revoke nearly $7 billion in federal stimulus money unless the state restores legislated wage cuts for unionized health-care workers.
Obama Administration to federalism: Drop dead.
In its budget deal, California agreed to $74 million in wage cuts for unionized home health-care workers. The Service Employees International Union huffed to the higher power in Washington, which duly agreed to hold California's stimulus hostage.
Governor Schwarzenegger has sent a letter asking the feds to reconsider, noting the cuts were taken in response to "an unprecedented fiscal crisis." Even now the state faces an estimated cash-flow problem of some $17 billion by July.
Restoring the union money will require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, a task in California somewhat akin to moving the Sierra Nevadas. Still, it's worth noting where the Obama team ranks the political authority of a legislative enactment by the state of California versus the political clout of a union.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182572571502451.html
Just another example of his thuggery and mobster style politics. But we seem to accept the fact. So much for a state governing itself. Next on the hit lists the health and insurance industry, who'll be made a similiar offers. I believe the health industry was threatened today. And Gethner said over the weekend that thy want no more booms, so they'll have to keep the reins held tight so to much money will be made by any industry. Now that sounds an -ism.
I may have to invest in cement.
CB
Last edited:
Steadygain
TSP Elite
CB,
I've read a lot of stuff by Martin A. Armstrong over the past month and I bet you'd really enjoy hearing the details he uncovers. Malyla turned me on to him in the Long Term Buy and Hold Tread.
This guy has gone from the ancient times all the way up to the present showing how the Economic/Political Forces have evolved over the years - and striking patterns or cycles that are virtually impossible to ignore.
What he shows is presently ongoing is very much in line with the kind of stuff I could see you making known to everyone.
I've read a lot of stuff by Martin A. Armstrong over the past month and I bet you'd really enjoy hearing the details he uncovers. Malyla turned me on to him in the Long Term Buy and Hold Tread.
This guy has gone from the ancient times all the way up to the present showing how the Economic/Political Forces have evolved over the years - and striking patterns or cycles that are virtually impossible to ignore.
What he shows is presently ongoing is very much in line with the kind of stuff I could see you making known to everyone.
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Steady,
On our Roth's I'm pretty long buy and hold on 75% of my portfolio, the other 25 I'll sell if it ever goes up.:laugh:
CB
On our Roth's I'm pretty long buy and hold on 75% of my portfolio, the other 25 I'll sell if it ever goes up.:laugh:
CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
A different POV and thoughts on this administration. Makes some good points for an evil republican, but the facts are all out there for those that want to research and care about the truth.
David Frum: Quick fix today, crisis tomorrow in Obama's White House
Posted: May 10, 2009, 12:41 PM by NP Editor
Something bad and dangerous is happening in Barack Obama's America.
The powers that the Obama administration claimed in order to arrest the financial crisis and mitigate the recession are being used and abused in ways that are underming the legal and financial stability of the United States. Investors: You are warned.
The first warning was the attempt to snatch Chrysler's assets away from their rightful owners to pay off administration friends and supporters.
The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.
The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar.
For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times.
The bondholders squawked. Well -- not all the bondholders. Bondholders who had previously taken government bailouts for themselves, via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), kept quiet. That's bad enough. It means that these major lenders were breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders in order to placate their new masters in Washington.
But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government."
The Obama administration denies it threatened anyone. And yet over the past week, one by one, formerly protesting bondholders have abruptly gone silent. Last week, the non-TARP group represented bondholders holding $1-billion in Chrysler bonds. By the end of this week, the group had shrunk to represent only $300-million in bonds. As one commenter observed: that shrinkage suggests that the threats were real.
Then, on Thursday, another alarm sounded.
The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.
Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender.
That missing money will have to be compensated for. Already, California's budget plans rely overwhelmingly on a mix of accounting tricks (selling future lottery revenues for an up-front payment) and tax increases. Now the state will need more tricks and more tax increases.
And so will the other states, as they too get the message: no pay cuts for unionized workers will be tolerated by Obama's Washington.
So, result:
In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.
In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.
Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)
It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow.
points.
David Frum: Quick fix today, crisis tomorrow in Obama's White House
Posted: May 10, 2009, 12:41 PM by NP Editor
Something bad and dangerous is happening in Barack Obama's America.
The powers that the Obama administration claimed in order to arrest the financial crisis and mitigate the recession are being used and abused in ways that are underming the legal and financial stability of the United States. Investors: You are warned.
The first warning was the attempt to snatch Chrysler's assets away from their rightful owners to pay off administration friends and supporters.
The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.
The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar.
For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times.
The bondholders squawked. Well -- not all the bondholders. Bondholders who had previously taken government bailouts for themselves, via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), kept quiet. That's bad enough. It means that these major lenders were breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders in order to placate their new masters in Washington.
But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government."
The Obama administration denies it threatened anyone. And yet over the past week, one by one, formerly protesting bondholders have abruptly gone silent. Last week, the non-TARP group represented bondholders holding $1-billion in Chrysler bonds. By the end of this week, the group had shrunk to represent only $300-million in bonds. As one commenter observed: that shrinkage suggests that the threats were real.
Then, on Thursday, another alarm sounded.
The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.
Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender.
That missing money will have to be compensated for. Already, California's budget plans rely overwhelmingly on a mix of accounting tricks (selling future lottery revenues for an up-front payment) and tax increases. Now the state will need more tricks and more tax increases.
And so will the other states, as they too get the message: no pay cuts for unionized workers will be tolerated by Obama's Washington.
So, result:
In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.
In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.
Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)
It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow.
points.
Steadygain
TSP Elite
CB,
I think the world of you and very often it's easy to misunderstand what I'm saying - because unfortunately you often have to read between the lines, cause I'm barely throwing something out and I APPOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I would never have made that comment - especially mentioning your name - if it was in any way meant as an insult.
This is what I was expressing:
Initially I deliberately choose to be 'close minded' and made a point of giving BHO the benefit of the doubt - and essentially tried my best to maintain this wonderful 'Cloud of Illusion' where by he was great and wonderful.
YOUR POSTS came so quickly and frequently that it cut against the Illusion and the LAST thing I wanted was to feel like an BHO Conspirasist (sp). All of your posts had direct references - so there is no way I (or anyone else) could attack you. But for me to live in 'The Fantasy' - which is so much better than the real world - I simply told myself that your sources were bent on plotting against BHO and comming up with anything possible - maybe even exaggerating to push their cause. This way I could dismiss it or not let it sink in.
I hope I'm making since - because I have such huge respect and admiration for you. SO - the only thing I was illuding to in my message is that I even tried to protect myself from things that would make me see BHO in a bad light. That is the only thing I meant CB - It was in no way intended as an attack against you.
As time has progressed many things about BHO have emerged that go hand in hand with things you have made a point of sharing from day one. Even know some things that may be scarier. So CB I think it's important to keep an 'open mind' and that is ultimately the point of my message. By allowing myself to be 'open minded' I fully agree with the point the Thread was making and that is if even half the stuff is true - then we are dealing with some pretty heavy duty scarey stuff. So PLEASE KNOW - that even though I initially saw your posts in an ALARMIST - maybe even PARANOID nature and eventually decided to blow them off - THERE WAS NO WAY POSSIBLE I COULD KEEP THE FACTS AND STORIES FROM GETTING THROUGH. The more I came to know the more I thought 'Wow - CB - has been trying to warn us over and over'.
When I came to your defense with ChemEng - I made it real clear that what you stood for was deeply admirable and only when someone can recognize the true motivation behind what you're doing would they see it's crazy to argue against you.
So CB - I am not arguing against you at all - I am a lot more private regarding my political views and especially regarding Obama. Ultimately what I was saying is that even though I made a point of blowing you off - eventually I was confronted with tons of information and with that the Illusion ended.
Please don't stop being you - and doing what you know is right. You're one of the few trying to bring everything to light and it simply took me awhile to appreciate the depth of your endeavors.
Have a good one my friend,
Steady
I think the world of you and very often it's easy to misunderstand what I'm saying - because unfortunately you often have to read between the lines, cause I'm barely throwing something out and I APPOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I would never have made that comment - especially mentioning your name - if it was in any way meant as an insult.
This is what I was expressing:
Initially I deliberately choose to be 'close minded' and made a point of giving BHO the benefit of the doubt - and essentially tried my best to maintain this wonderful 'Cloud of Illusion' where by he was great and wonderful.
YOUR POSTS came so quickly and frequently that it cut against the Illusion and the LAST thing I wanted was to feel like an BHO Conspirasist (sp). All of your posts had direct references - so there is no way I (or anyone else) could attack you. But for me to live in 'The Fantasy' - which is so much better than the real world - I simply told myself that your sources were bent on plotting against BHO and comming up with anything possible - maybe even exaggerating to push their cause. This way I could dismiss it or not let it sink in.
I hope I'm making since - because I have such huge respect and admiration for you. SO - the only thing I was illuding to in my message is that I even tried to protect myself from things that would make me see BHO in a bad light. That is the only thing I meant CB - It was in no way intended as an attack against you.
As time has progressed many things about BHO have emerged that go hand in hand with things you have made a point of sharing from day one. Even know some things that may be scarier. So CB I think it's important to keep an 'open mind' and that is ultimately the point of my message. By allowing myself to be 'open minded' I fully agree with the point the Thread was making and that is if even half the stuff is true - then we are dealing with some pretty heavy duty scarey stuff. So PLEASE KNOW - that even though I initially saw your posts in an ALARMIST - maybe even PARANOID nature and eventually decided to blow them off - THERE WAS NO WAY POSSIBLE I COULD KEEP THE FACTS AND STORIES FROM GETTING THROUGH. The more I came to know the more I thought 'Wow - CB - has been trying to warn us over and over'.
When I came to your defense with ChemEng - I made it real clear that what you stood for was deeply admirable and only when someone can recognize the true motivation behind what you're doing would they see it's crazy to argue against you.
So CB - I am not arguing against you at all - I am a lot more private regarding my political views and especially regarding Obama. Ultimately what I was saying is that even though I made a point of blowing you off - eventually I was confronted with tons of information and with that the Illusion ended.
Please don't stop being you - and doing what you know is right. You're one of the few trying to bring everything to light and it simply took me awhile to appreciate the depth of your endeavors.
Have a good one my friend,
Steady
Steadygain
TSP Elite
CB,
I hope we're cool
Your daughter has done very well for herself and I hope your having a great time.
Also glad you're in G Fund !! - and over the next few months all the more it should pay off.
Well take care,
Steady
I hope we're cool
Your daughter has done very well for herself and I hope your having a great time.
Also glad you're in G Fund !! - and over the next few months all the more it should pay off.
Well take care,
Steady
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Yeah Steady,
We're cool
, it just kinda hit me sideways, but you're right, you used my name and wasn't trying to do it behind my back, so don't give it a second thought, I know I won't and sorry for taking it the wrong way, I should've known better.Yeah we had a great time yesterday and she is pumped to start working...poor thing doesn't know what she's in for. :laugh:
You have a good one today bud,
CB
CountryBoy
Well-known member
from today's Wall Street Journal:
MAY 13, 2009
Chrysler and the Rule of Law
The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.
By TODD J. ZYWICKI
The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.
Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?
Until Chrysler.
The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."
The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.
The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.
Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.
The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.
By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.
And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?
Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press
Well? Is this also acceptable? I'm serious, because we are headed this way and I't be interested to hear from someone that agrees with this and why.
CB
MAY 13, 2009
Chrysler and the Rule of Law
The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.
By TODD J. ZYWICKI
The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.
Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?
Until Chrysler.
The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."
The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.
The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.
Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.
The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.
By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.
And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?
Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press
Well? Is this also acceptable? I'm serious, because we are headed this way and I't be interested to hear from someone that agrees with this and why.
CB
