Market Talk

imported post

Looks like Mother Nature will try to impose her own ways of oil conservation which -- more than likely -- will not damped oil prices per barrel. The big rise in oil prices has amounted into a de facto tax hike. A tough head wind for both consumers and companies.

It would be nice if hurricane season was already priced into oil futures.
 
imported post

Looking at the sp500 it stopped at major retracement level 1204.75 friday.. if it holds we might get a pop up 0f some sort.... But the way oil is and the weather in the gulf I see it going lower to the next level.... 1191.50....
A 4th quarter rally to 1275 --13125 would be nice....
100%g
Skip

See chart below







attachment.php
 
imported post

The C fund looks like a nice buying opportunity for those of us that were doing dollar cost averaging on Friday. As a matter of fact even the S fund is returning a good value price at current levels. Bring'em both down a little more in the next two weeks so I can play gotcha - then we can rally. Does that sound too bullish?
 
imported post

Robo,

You have any pretty updated graphs showing the dowside for S&P.

Teknobucks,

Hurry up - I know you got something good to show us.
 
imported post

Birchtree wrote:
You have any pretty updated graphs showing the dowside for S&P.

I'm like the Fox News channel, Fair and balanced.... I show what the Tech's send me.

I don't always agree with them, or take their advice, but they currently allhave sell signals out..... These guys have pretty good track records, so they are worth reading.......Short Term Bearish, Long Term Bullish... If the market pulls back some more Monday I will add some long postions for a short term play.... :cool:

I should have some pretty new charts by Monday, butI don't think they will influence you... Soon I think the charts will all be showing the next breakout up!!!!!

I still think the S&P hits 1300 by the end of the year..............
 
imported post

Bob Brinker today spent some time trashing Allen Greenspan for the latter's comments about real estate values this weekend at Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Brinker seems to believe real estate has just about topped out by now, so Greenspan's comments about the possibility of real estate depreciating brought out Brinker's wrath.

He didn't go so far as Tekno's Jeckyll Isand reference or Grandma's mention of it, but seems like Greenspan's jawboning of the economy is not being favorably received.

Brinker said it would be a good thing if the Fed paused at 3.5% since it takes a while forthose consecutive increases to take effect ... and especially since there's been arun up in oil prices.

Best internet streaming of MoneyTalk I've found is WRKO in Boston.
 
imported post

Quips wrote:
Best internet streaming of MoneyTalk I've found is WRKO in Boston


I have Money talk on demand.... I'm going to checkout Bob later this evening....

There is always a small chance the Fed could pause..... Talk about a Market mover, that would do it for sure.....
 
imported post

Skip wrote:
Looking at the sp500 it stopped at major retracement level 1204.75 friday.. if it holds we might get a pop up 0f some sort.... But the way oil is and the weather in the gulf I see it going lower to the next level.... 1191.50....
A 4th quarter rally to 1275 --13125 would be nice....

Skip
I agree with what you are saying. We are a week away from Labor day. With the fuss over rates and oil, 1191 is a possibility.

WW posted the EIA Petroleum Status Report. We are not hurting for oil. I figure it's a greed factor, to last till after Labor day.

Isn't there some type of board or agency that checks the profits of oil companies?

I think Tekno said that it takes about $4.00 (?)to extract a barrel of oil. Ok! where does the other $6x.xx go?

Rgds, :? Spaf
 
imported post

Spaf wrote:

I think Tekno said that it takes about $4.00 (?)to extract a barrel of oil. Ok! where does the other $6x.xx go?
Someone is gettingvery, very, rich!
 
imported post

Hmmmm.....oil recedes back to an unjustifiable high from an even worse high and some analyst thinks its still good....well thinking and actually being is two different things...just how is $66 a barrel good for the economy....besides the factits less than $68/bbl...!!!

Well this hurricane sure is going to trip things this coming week.....hope ya'll have your seat belts fastened!!!

:dude:
 
imported post

Hi ya Tech!
I'm just hoping oil goes back where it's not such a drag on everything. However right now...till labor day, I think it's greed.

This oil thing ain't going away. But I get the impression that no one has control over the profit taking.

Seat belts are good! So are helmets! Rgds!
1224.gif
Spaf

PS Wil be starting a new Market Talk thread, see ya there!
 
imported post

Wonder Woman wrote:
Them Awful Republicans


[align=left]8/15/00[/align]

[align=left]Clinton Never Lets Facts Get in the Way of Distorting the Truth
President shades truth, takes credit for the economy[/align]

[align=left]WASHINGTON- Last night in Los Angeles President Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention and discussed his Administration's accomplishments.[/align]

[align=left]"The President focused on the strength of the economy and the extended prosperity of the country during his speech and he tried to take full credit for himself and Al Gore," said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. "Unfortunately, the President was less than honest in many of his assertions."[/align]

[align=left]"As usual, Clinton's speech was high on symbolism and short on substance," added Norquist. "Repeatedly Clinton took credit for things that he and Al Gore had little or nothing to do with."[/align]

[align=left]"Americans for Tax Reform has issued responses to many of the President's claims to help set the record straight on just who is responsible for the remarkable strength of our nation's economy," Norquist concluded.[/align]

[align=left]Clinton's Claims[/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "Today, the typical American family is paying a lower share of its income in federal income taxes than at any point during the last thirty-five years."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth:[/b] While this may be true about federal INCOME taxes, the fact is, today the average family pays about 24.5% in federal taxes alone. Moreover, the average family's expenditures for federal, state, and local taxes now are higher than what it spends for food, clothing, and housing combined. To compare, in 1950, the average family with children paid 2% of its annual income to the federal government in taxes. It is important to note that taxes today are more than they were during WWII. [/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "The average family's income has gone up more than $5,000."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth: This is due to more families needing two income earners to pay for their share of taxes and the cost of government. High taxation rates have not only emptied the pockets of many families, but also driven unwilling parents out of the home. A 1988 USA Today poll found that 73% of two-income families would prefer to have one of the parents stay home if they could afford it, despite the fact that over 60% of married mothers with children under six years of age work outside the home.[/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "We are more hopeful because of the way we cut taxes - to help Americans meet the challenges of work and child rearing. ...Twenty-five million families will get a $500 child tax credit."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth: Recently, President Clinton vetoed the Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000 that would have eliminated the unfair marriage tax penalty for 25 million married couples, saving the average family more than $1,000 per year. That hardly helps Americans meet the challenges of work and child rearing. While Clinton and Gore argued this was a risky tax cut, the fact is the elimination of the marriage penalty equates to about four percent of the projected non-Social Security surplus. Moreover, Clinton failed to pass a child tax credit when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In 1997, a Republican Congress passed the child tax credit. The Republicans originally pushed for a $1000 credit that Clinton opposed. Clinton reluctantly signed a $500 tax credit.[/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "Today, we have gone from the largest deficits in history to the largest surpluses in history - and if we stay on course, we can make America debt-free for the first time since 1835."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth: According to the Wall Street Journal, "Another Genesis fable is that the Clinton-Gore team created today's budget surpluses. But the contraction in federal spending during the 1990s has almost entirely come out of Defense-- falling to about 3% of GDP from 5.2%. This is what happens when you win the Cold War, a historic victory made possible by the Reagan defense buildup that contributed to deficits in the 1980s. Bill Clinton is nothing if not lucky."[/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "It took Al Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to overcome unanimous Republican opposition to deficit reduction. Today, America has gone from the biggest deficits in history to the biggest surpluses in history. Fiscal discipline keeps interest rates low and investment rates high - and it has helped fuel America's remarkable prosperity."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth: The economy prospered in spite of Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in 1993 to pass the largest tax increase in history. This legislation raised taxes on Social Security recipients and increased the federal tax on gasoline. Incidentally, earlier this year, as gas prices rose more than 50 percent over where they had been the previous year, Clinton and Gore were bristled at the idea of repealing the gas tax that was implemented as part of this largest tax increase in American history. [/align]

[align=left]Clinton's claim: "Now, we're also more hopeful because we ended welfare as we knew it."[/align]

[align=left]The Truth: The President opposed welfare reform and adopted it only after he knew his veto would be overridden by Congress.[/align]

[align=left]###
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases.[/align]
 
imported post

Wonder Woman wrote:
[font="Verdana, Helvetica"]Lincoln's Real Deal[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Paul Craig Roberts [/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]March 20, 2002[/font]

War on terror endangers liberty

The war on terror is creating media attention and fund-raising opportunities for conservative organizations. It is also creating confusion of thought among conservatives and, thereby, opportunities for more centralized government power and a police state.

Too many Americans are coming to accept that a successful war on terror requires a police state in whole or part.

For example, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act would give state governors the power to order people from their homes and force them into quarantines, separate parents from children, impose price controls and rationing, and confiscate guns and other property.

Supposedly, this is to protect us from germ warfare, but herding people into confined spaces is the best way to spread disease.

The Emergency Health Powers Act is sponsored by the federal agency Centers for Disease Control. According to Phyllis Schlafly (
http://www.eagleforum.org), the bill, conveying dictatorial powers upon governors, is already moving through state legislatures.

We are in far more danger from the belief that the ends justify the means than we are from terrorists. Fortunately, in our time of need Loyola College Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo has stepped forward with a blockbuster of a book, "The Real Lincoln," just released by Prima Publishing. Read it and regain perspective.
Lincoln believed that his ends justified his means. He used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government.

Lincoln assumed dictatorial military powers. He used them to suppress all Northern opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts.

Lincoln violated every constitutionally guaranteed civil right. He ignored rulings hand-delivered to him by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to respect and faithfully execute the laws of the United States and to protect civil rights.

Lincoln replied by suspending habeas corpus, by instituting a secret police and by arbitrarily arresting without warrants or due process thousands of leading citizens of Northern cities, state legislators, U.S. congressmen, newspaper owners and editors, ministers, bankers, policemen -- literally everyone who expressed the slightest reservation about Lincoln's aims and means, or who was anonymously denounced by a rival or envious neighbor.
In the thoroughness with which Lincoln suppressed dissent, he prefigured 20th century totalitarians.
Lincoln's "train of abuses" far exceeded those that provoked our Founding Fathers to declare independence from Britain.

In conducting the war, Lincoln encouraged his generals to violate international law, the U.S. Military Code and the moral prohibition against waging war on civilians. Lincoln urged his generals to conduct total war against the Southern civilian population, to slaughter them with bombardments, to burn their homes, barns and towns, to use rape as a weapon of war, to destroy foodstuffs, and to leave women, children and the elderly in the cold of winter without shelter or a scrap of food.

In order to carry out Lincoln's wishes, a new kind of soldier was needed. Gen. Sherman filled his regiments with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of Europe. The war against the Southern civilian population was fought with the immigrant soldier.

DiLornezo writes that had the South won the war, there is no doubt that Lincoln and his generals -- Grant, Sherman and Sheridan -- would have been hung as war criminals under the Geneva Convention of 1863.
Lincoln was an American Pol Pot, except worse. Pol Pot's barbarism was justified by the Marxian doctrine of class genocide to which he adhered. Lincoln's barbarism was prohibited by the morality of his time and the U.S. Constitution, yet neither deterred him.

DiLorenzo's greatest contribution is to show the real reasons for which Lincoln went to war. Abolishing slavery was not one of them. Lincoln was determined to destroy the Southern states in order to remove the constraints that Southern senators and congressmen, standing in the Jeffersonian tradition, placed in the way of centralized federal power, high tariffs and subsidies to Northern industries.

Lincoln lusted after Empire. The juggernaut he put in place exterminated the Plains Indians with the same ferocity with which Southern towns and cities were sacked and pillaged. Far from "saving the union," Lincoln utterly destroyed the union achieved by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution.

So little is left of accountable government that the war on terror could very easily bring down the remaining timbers of a once great house. Conservatives should rethink their enthusiasm for the police state methods of the war on terror while there is still time.

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
[/font]
 
Back
Top