Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What does your gut tell you about the legal justification of predator drones?
There are rules of war that protect civilians.
Are terrorists soldiers? Combatants? Violent militants/reformists/political activists?
All of the above?
Here's an opinion that shines some light on both pro and con:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/12/drone-legal-basis/
Obama's not Mother Teresa.
I'll admit, there's hundreds of really tough questions he faces.
He deserves the respect that the majority of voters elected him to.
------------------------------
He isn't above reproach......
Four years ago he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
His use of drones, in my opinion, is lawless.
------------------------------
In 2014 the Senate will have 20 Dems and 13 Repubs up for election
Congress will have to elect all 435 seats; 201 Dems and 234 Repubs.
If Dems get a majority in both houses......you'll have your wish.
It's not a question about real people suffering, the employees do take a hit.
New hires/replacement hires, furloughs, reduced hours.
The little people.
Obama's use of the military won't suffer.
Here's an article on the cuts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323549204578320420929467116.html
How Federal Spending Would Be Cut Under the Sequester
Updated February 22, 2013, 7:48 p.m. ET
Holly crap! This is diving!
Here's the problem;
Humans have always banded together and 'created a more perfect union'.
"In Unity there is strength"
And that works really great.
And here's the caveat:
Every Human is an individual.
He/she is self supportive
and even in times of weakness others come together to help.
Just as he/she supported them.
The Fed Reserve was created to support banks.
The question about banks should be:
Why are they corporations?
They produce no product or service that can be part of the gross National (GNP).
The question about the major banks should be:
Do you give as much as you take?
Do you advance the human condition?
The 'Sequester' is an illusion.
No reform will take place.
No power will be lost.
The power of the military won't be diminished.
No bases need be closed.
The money comes from the humble, the families of personal.
The employees.
The sequester is just a layoff of suppotive personal.
It's all bullshit.
Just like all the politicians who created it.
Blame Bush for the bailout but Obama supports the house of cards.
I liked your ten points for tax reform.
Not perfect....... but what is?
Actually, I saw this in the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal today.
I've had to find a link to post as the Journal is restrictive.
Of course, I understand that his opinion is one that promotes freedom in the market.
What is important is that Canada has been void of political abuse and manipulation in banking.
And Canada didn't suffer from the past economic housing meltdown.
I think it's all about political manipulation.......
I don't blame Carter for the end of the Glass–Steagall Act.
But our government and legislature is manipulated by detrimental forces.
Obama INCLUDED!
Great post!
As for myself, I think we all have to understand (me included) that politics and politicians need disparage.
They (politicians) need to feel important.
They are driven to find emotional support.
Their value as individuals is subject to the consensus of others.
Power and the adulation of the people is a driving force.
Where once were a set of principles that inspired action are now a reason for dissension.
Take for example the war on terrorism..........
We've escalated the war with drones, unmanned aircraft that bombs sovereign nations without a declaration of war.
That, in itself, is a description of terrorism.
This is an ego centric sign of abuse of power.
My life, as a citizen of America, and my children are not worth this immorality for the pretense of security!
You should have such a nice ass!
We, as individuals, better humanity every day of our lives.
Our tiny sacrifices and tolerance to others' transgressions that we hope will be reciprocated
as we might unknowingly screw up their day.
Our daily lives have been voided by capitalism.
Capitalism, even with all the benefits it brings, is self destructive.
There is an inherent drive to accumulate and secure wealth.
The human emotion of ambition is rewarded.
All economic theory of capitalism is based on supply/demand
and cost of labor tilts the scale.
Reduce the cost of labor and more profit is realized.
If labor costs rise, whether it is in commodities or production,
profit is lost.
Labor is human.
In capitalism there can be a limited amount of companies;
a percentage of the population that can own a business.
Everyone else is labor. (I simplify, of course)
The balance between business and labor has been screwed by the financial power by business into politics by lobbyists.
Under suspicion, what do English Muffins hide in nooks and crannies!
Forgive me,
Stupidity is not a crime and a bullet has no intelligence.
Together they fill our courts and prisons.
Maybe they serve waffles?
Debunking the Myths About Central Banks
By Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.
A brief resume: http://www.cato.org/people/gerald-odriscoll
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on February 28, 2013.
The article:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/debunking-myths-about-central-banks
Myths govern modern central banking. Like many myths, they contain an element of truth that has been distorted by exaggeration and misapplication. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Federal Reserve System—an appropriate time for some long-overdue myth-busting.
The first myth is that central banks are intrinsically necessary for market economies. History and theory belie this.
The Federal Reserve was not founded until 1913, and it had no monetary role. The U.S. operated under a gold standard and had no need for a central bank to control the money supply. A gold, or any commodity, standard places a natural limitation on money creation, which is the resource cost of extracting the commodity. It is only with fiat (paper) money that central banks are necessary to control the money supply.
The Bank of Canada was not founded until 1935. The Canadian banking system survived the Great Depression with no major bank failures. By contrast, thousands of U.S banks failed, despite the existence of the Federal Reserve. These large-scale failures were ended by FDR’s bank holiday, not by any Fed contribution to banking stability.
The second myth is that central banks are needed as a lender of last resort—that is, to supply liquidity in times of financial stress when short-term lending freezes up. The Federal Reserve’s lending in the aftermath of Lehman’s collapse in 2008 is the new textbook example of this function. But this argument has the causality exactly backwards.
Walter Bagehot, the eminent 19th-century British economic journalist, coined the phrase “lender of last resort” in his classic book, “Lombard Street.” He recognized this was an essential function for the Bank of England.
However, the context is often dropped. Bagehot knew that a central bank inevitably resulted in a concentration of reserves within that institution, making it the lender of last resort. But he did not believe that a central bank was inevitable or desirable.
“Does an economy need a lender of last resort? Is the Fed really independent? It’s time for some rethinking.”
For Bagehot, “the natural system” was the one “which would have sprung up if Government had let banking alone.” There would have been “many banks of equal or not altogether unequal size.” He described this as “the many reserve system,” in which each bank held reserves for itself, which he believed would have meant a stronger banking system. In modern parlance, Bagehot’s celebrated “lender of last resort” is a second-best solution—second to a world of competitive banks and no central bank.
In the post-Civil War era, the U.S. banking system did not operate as Bagehot’s “natural system.” Government regulations concentrated bank reserves in major cities, with the result that the economy was subject to panics and bank runs (which were rare in other countries), culminating in the Panic of 1907. Instead of fixing the problems of the national banking system, however, lawmakers led by the progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, created a central bank, the Federal Reserve System.
A third myth is that of central-bank independence. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve is viewed as having gained independence as the result of the Accord of 1951 with the U.S. Treasury. After the accord, the Fed was no longer required to maintain the prices of government bonds and thus fix interest rates. That requirement, born of the fiscal needs of World War II, hindered the Fed from fighting inflation by preventing it from raising interest rates during the Korean War.
Since 1951, there has been no relevant change in the Fed’s legal status. The bank has acted independently at times—but at other times its actions have been anything but independent of the other branches of government.
In the 1950s, under Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, inflation remained low. Yet his had little to do with Martin. President Eisenhower was an inflation hawk, and throughout the 1950s budget deficits were low or nonexistent. Once Presidents Kennedy and Johnson accepted Keynesian fiscal activism, deficits rose. Martin was happy to accommodate the government with easy money. He did not believe monetary policy could—or should—operate independently of fiscal policy. What followed was the first peacetime inflation in U.S. history.
The Fed’s independence hit a nadir under Chairman Arthur Burns. The diary he kept during the Nixon years confirms that Fed policy became subservient to administration goals and the president’s re-election campaign. As he wrote in one diary entry, he told Nixon that “I was looking after monetary policy and he did not need to be concerned about the possibility that the Federal Reserve would starve the economy.” The great inflation of the 1970s was the outcome.
Paul Volcker, chairman from 1979 to 1987, restored the Fed’s inflation-fighting reputation, and the bank under his management is held up as a model of independence. And true enough, there were many in the legislative branch, as well as outside the government, who complained bitterly about his tight-money policy, which ultimately reined in inflation and spurred growth. Even so Mr. Volcker, like Martin before him, had strong support from the two presidents during whose administrations he served, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
If we fast forward to today, it is difficult to portray the Fed under Chairman Ben Bernanke as operating independently in any meaningful sense. In 2011, the Fed purchased an unprecedented 77% of Treasury debt. With his long-term commitment to ultra-low interest rates, Mr. Bernanke has hitched monetary policy to the fiscal policy of the Obama administration in a bid to inflate asset prices. That is the opposite of what is supposed to be central bank independence—and places the Fed closer to a presidential administration than it has been since the days of Burns and Nixon.
The lesson from this history is what I call “central banking without romance,” after a famous article by the late Nobel prizewinning economist James M. Buchanan, “Politics Without Romance.” A central bank is necessary as long as an economy is wedded to a fiat currency. And it may at times behave independently—but not in the face of large-scale budget deficits, as we have today.
Pursuit of price stability is the one goal that nearly everyone agrees is a central bank responsibility. Yet it is the one on which the Fed and other central banks have failed miserably. Since the Fed’s founding in 1913, consumer prices have increased by a factor of 23 times. If the U.S. can extricate itself from fiscal deficits, price stability would be an attainable goal for central banks. Otherwise, central banking is nothing but mythology.
Debunking the Myths About Central Banks
By Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.
A brief resume: http://www.cato.org/people/gerald-odriscoll
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on February 28, 2013.
The article:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/debunking-myths-about-central-banks
Myths govern modern central banking. Like many myths, they contain an element of truth that has been distorted by exaggeration and misapplication. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Federal Reserve System—an appropriate time for some long-overdue myth-busting.
The first myth is that central banks are intrinsically necessary for market economies. History and theory belie this.
The Federal Reserve was not founded until 1913, and it had no monetary role. The U.S. operated under a gold standard and had no need for a central bank to control the money supply. A gold, or any commodity, standard places a natural limitation on money creation, which is the resource cost of extracting the commodity. It is only with fiat (paper) money that central banks are necessary to control the money supply.
The Bank of Canada was not founded until 1935. The Canadian banking system survived the Great Depression with no major bank failures. By contrast, thousands of U.S banks failed, despite the existence of the Federal Reserve. These large-scale failures were ended by FDR’s bank holiday, not by any Fed contribution to banking stability.
The second myth is that central banks are needed as a lender of last resort—that is, to supply liquidity in times of financial stress when short-term lending freezes up. The Federal Reserve’s lending in the aftermath of Lehman’s collapse in 2008 is the new textbook example of this function. But this argument has the causality exactly backwards.
Walter Bagehot, the eminent 19th-century British economic journalist, coined the phrase “lender of last resort” in his classic book, “Lombard Street.” He recognized this was an essential function for the Bank of England.
However, the context is often dropped. Bagehot knew that a central bank inevitably resulted in a concentration of reserves within that institution, making it the lender of last resort. But he did not believe that a central bank was inevitable or desirable.
“Does an economy need a lender of last resort? Is the Fed really independent? It’s time for some rethinking.”
For Bagehot, “the natural system” was the one “which would have sprung up if Government had let banking alone.” There would have been “many banks of equal or not altogether unequal size.” He described this as “the many reserve system,” in which each bank held reserves for itself, which he believed would have meant a stronger banking system. In modern parlance, Bagehot’s celebrated “lender of last resort” is a second-best solution—second to a world of competitive banks and no central bank.
In the post-Civil War era, the U.S. banking system did not operate as Bagehot’s “natural system.” Government regulations concentrated bank reserves in major cities, with the result that the economy was subject to panics and bank runs (which were rare in other countries), culminating in the Panic of 1907. Instead of fixing the problems of the national banking system, however, lawmakers led by the progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, created a central bank, the Federal Reserve System.
A third myth is that of central-bank independence. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve is viewed as having gained independence as the result of the Accord of 1951 with the U.S. Treasury. After the accord, the Fed was no longer required to maintain the prices of government bonds and thus fix interest rates. That requirement, born of the fiscal needs of World War II, hindered the Fed from fighting inflation by preventing it from raising interest rates during the Korean War.
Since 1951, there has been no relevant change in the Fed’s legal status. The bank has acted independently at times—but at other times its actions have been anything but independent of the other branches of government.
In the 1950s, under Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, inflation remained low. Yet his had little to do with Martin. President Eisenhower was an inflation hawk, and throughout the 1950s budget deficits were low or nonexistent. Once Presidents Kennedy and Johnson accepted Keynesian fiscal activism, deficits rose. Martin was happy to accommodate the government with easy money. He did not believe monetary policy could—or should—operate independently of fiscal policy. What followed was the first peacetime inflation in U.S. history.
The Fed’s independence hit a nadir under Chairman Arthur Burns. The diary he kept during the Nixon years confirms that Fed policy became subservient to administration goals and the president’s re-election campaign. As he wrote in one diary entry, he told Nixon that “I was looking after monetary policy and he did not need to be concerned about the possibility that the Federal Reserve would starve the economy.” The great inflation of the 1970s was the outcome.
Paul Volcker, chairman from 1979 to 1987, restored the Fed’s inflation-fighting reputation, and the bank under his management is held up as a model of independence. And true enough, there were many in the legislative branch, as well as outside the government, who complained bitterly about his tight-money policy, which ultimately reined in inflation and spurred growth. Even so Mr. Volcker, like Martin before him, had strong support from the two presidents during whose administrations he served, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
If we fast forward to today, it is difficult to portray the Fed under Chairman Ben Bernanke as operating independently in any meaningful sense. In 2011, the Fed purchased an unprecedented 77% of Treasury debt. With his long-term commitment to ultra-low interest rates, Mr. Bernanke has hitched monetary policy to the fiscal policy of the Obama administration in a bid to inflate asset prices. That is the opposite of what is supposed to be central bank independence—and places the Fed closer to a presidential administration than it has been since the days of Burns and Nixon.
The lesson from this history is what I call “central banking without romance,” after a famous article by the late Nobel prizewinning economist James M. Buchanan, “Politics Without Romance.” A central bank is necessary as long as an economy is wedded to a fiat currency. And it may at times behave independently—but not in the face of large-scale budget deficits, as we have today.
Pursuit of price stability is the one goal that nearly everyone agrees is a central bank responsibility. Yet it is the one on which the Fed and other central banks have failed miserably. Since the Fed’s founding in 1913, consumer prices have increased by a factor of 23 times. If the U.S. can extricate itself from fiscal deficits, price stability would be an attainable goal for central banks. Otherwise, central banking is nothing but mythology.
Debunking the Myths About Central Banks
By Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.
A brief resume: http://www.cato.org/people/gerald-odriscoll
This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on February 28, 2013.
The article:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/debunking-myths-about-central-banks
Myths govern modern central banking. Like many myths, they contain an element of truth that has been distorted by exaggeration and misapplication. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Federal Reserve System—an appropriate time for some long-overdue myth-busting.
The first myth is that central banks are intrinsically necessary for market economies. History and theory belie this.
The Federal Reserve was not founded until 1913, and it had no monetary role. The U.S. operated under a gold standard and had no need for a central bank to control the money supply. A gold, or any commodity, standard places a natural limitation on money creation, which is the resource cost of extracting the commodity. It is only with fiat (paper) money that central banks are necessary to control the money supply.
The Bank of Canada was not founded until 1935. The Canadian banking system survived the Great Depression with no major bank failures. By contrast, thousands of U.S banks failed, despite the existence of the Federal Reserve. These large-scale failures were ended by FDR’s bank holiday, not by any Fed contribution to banking stability.
The second myth is that central banks are needed as a lender of last resort—that is, to supply liquidity in times of financial stress when short-term lending freezes up. The Federal Reserve’s lending in the aftermath of Lehman’s collapse in 2008 is the new textbook example of this function. But this argument has the causality exactly backwards.
Walter Bagehot, the eminent 19th-century British economic journalist, coined the phrase “lender of last resort” in his classic book, “Lombard Street.” He recognized this was an essential function for the Bank of England.
However, the context is often dropped. Bagehot knew that a central bank inevitably resulted in a concentration of reserves within that institution, making it the lender of last resort. But he did not believe that a central bank was inevitable or desirable.
“Does an economy need a lender of last resort? Is the Fed really independent? It’s time for some rethinking.”
For Bagehot, “the natural system” was the one “which would have sprung up if Government had let banking alone.” There would have been “many banks of equal or not altogether unequal size.” He described this as “the many reserve system,” in which each bank held reserves for itself, which he believed would have meant a stronger banking system. In modern parlance, Bagehot’s celebrated “lender of last resort” is a second-best solution—second to a world of competitive banks and no central bank.
In the post-Civil War era, the U.S. banking system did not operate as Bagehot’s “natural system.” Government regulations concentrated bank reserves in major cities, with the result that the economy was subject to panics and bank runs (which were rare in other countries), culminating in the Panic of 1907. Instead of fixing the problems of the national banking system, however, lawmakers led by the progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, created a central bank, the Federal Reserve System.
A third myth is that of central-bank independence. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve is viewed as having gained independence as the result of the Accord of 1951 with the U.S. Treasury. After the accord, the Fed was no longer required to maintain the prices of government bonds and thus fix interest rates. That requirement, born of the fiscal needs of World War II, hindered the Fed from fighting inflation by preventing it from raising interest rates during the Korean War.
Since 1951, there has been no relevant change in the Fed’s legal status. The bank has acted independently at times—but at other times its actions have been anything but independent of the other branches of government.
In the 1950s, under Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, inflation remained low. Yet his had little to do with Martin. President Eisenhower was an inflation hawk, and throughout the 1950s budget deficits were low or nonexistent. Once Presidents Kennedy and Johnson accepted Keynesian fiscal activism, deficits rose. Martin was happy to accommodate the government with easy money. He did not believe monetary policy could—or should—operate independently of fiscal policy. What followed was the first peacetime inflation in U.S. history.
The Fed’s independence hit a nadir under Chairman Arthur Burns. The diary he kept during the Nixon years confirms that Fed policy became subservient to administration goals and the president’s re-election campaign. As he wrote in one diary entry, he told Nixon that “I was looking after monetary policy and he did not need to be concerned about the possibility that the Federal Reserve would starve the economy.” The great inflation of the 1970s was the outcome.
Paul Volcker, chairman from 1979 to 1987, restored the Fed’s inflation-fighting reputation, and the bank under his management is held up as a model of independence. And true enough, there were many in the legislative branch, as well as outside the government, who complained bitterly about his tight-money policy, which ultimately reined in inflation and spurred growth. Even so Mr. Volcker, like Martin before him, had strong support from the two presidents during whose administrations he served, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
If we fast forward to today, it is difficult to portray the Fed under Chairman Ben Bernanke as operating independently in any meaningful sense. In 2011, the Fed purchased an unprecedented 77% of Treasury debt. With his long-term commitment to ultra-low interest rates, Mr. Bernanke has hitched monetary policy to the fiscal policy of the Obama administration in a bid to inflate asset prices. That is the opposite of what is supposed to be central bank independence—and places the Fed closer to a presidential administration than it has been since the days of Burns and Nixon.
The lesson from this history is what I call “central banking without romance,” after a famous article by the late Nobel prizewinning economist James M. Buchanan, “Politics Without Romance.” A central bank is necessary as long as an economy is wedded to a fiat currency. And it may at times behave independently—but not in the face of large-scale budget deficits, as we have today.
Pursuit of price stability is the one goal that nearly everyone agrees is a central bank responsibility. Yet it is the one on which the Fed and other central banks have failed miserably. Since the Fed’s founding in 1913, consumer prices have increased by a factor of 23 times. If the U.S. can extricate itself from fiscal deficits, price stability would be an attainable goal for central banks. Otherwise, central banking is nothing but mythology.
So true, Geo! We are very rich and have everything we want in this Country.
You have to deal with your fears, my friend!
Obama is just another link in the chain.
I won't condone him. Like every man, he must prove himself.
The political theater is changing but like all politics,
Power and money remains the same.
Our Republic Democracy is the newest form of political development.
250 years old.
Yea, it's fear.
We are all gonna die so why are we afraid of death?
Is it because we have this instinct to build and populate?
The goal of leaving a legacy for our children/grandchildren?
To build a better life for humanity?
When do these goals turn to greed?
Do our goals suppress others?
Is our prodigy subject to our sins?
Maybe we should fear Karma, the action we take to security.
America is you and me. Not 'Barry'.
Ouch! Today looks like the momentum has reversed.
Bought in today at $6.20.
The origination of the 'short buy' was to secure shares when money was scarce and the potential of the company was thought to be on the rise.
Here's the facts on European verses African swallows:
There is a adage that both denounces and supports common perception.
The good ones suck.
The bad ones swallow.
Now who ya wanna kiss?
Having fun yet?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You have to look at the definition of "entitlement" to understand the meaning:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1)a: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2): a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3): belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
------------------------------------
You should try to understand that we pay for those who use these entitlements because we want people to use them.
We don't have an 'entitlement' for warfare'.
If that were so, if waging war for defense of the Nation was a defined tax that each individual payed,
would you confine that?
Sequester does that.
Republicans didn't mind spending before 'Barry' was in office.
And 'Barry' is spending for republican sponsored wars.
Connect the dots:
War on Drugs, War on terrorism.
Each time a President declares a 'war' his powers increase.
We're paying for the ego centric power of the Presidency.
You're just focusing on what you call 'Barry'.
This illusion of Presidential power goes back to Johnson and his 'War on Poverty'.
But war is the essential word.
Johnson elevated the Vietnam war.
Nixon destroyed the gold standard because Europe wanted to be payed in gold for the debt we had because of war.
Connect the dots!
Paulson and the Bush Administration did provide the money.
That was in 2008.
The bailout is about money, cash.
But Banks have/had a major detriment to their ledger:
The assets they have/had are the substance that they loan against.
Example:
If I get a mortgage:
I get a payment book and a residence,
The Bank gets an asset that they can borrow and lend against.
The Bank can lend money with the mortgage (my mortgage).
It's called 'the fractional banking system'.
The bank can lend 90% of my mortgage they hold as an asset.
In 2008 the accounting assessment of this mortgage was 'mark to market'.
This confined the assets of banks to the value of the mortgage as if it were to be sold at that time.
Since all home value was destroyed by about 30% (modestly) at that time,
the assets of the bank were reduced and the loans banks made were unsupported.
In other words.....
The banks couldn't reconcile the books.
Summers, Geithner and Obama voided the 'Mark-to-Market' restrictions.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1884290,00.html
Sure, Obama didn't bail-out the banks ......
He just allowed them to cook the books.
Watch the marvels of our world with NOVA.
Here's what we can learn from looking at our world from a man made satellite.
Earth from Space
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html
I won't defend Obama, his use of drones...his bailouts of major banks.
I will tell you about fires.
Fire destroys thousands of square miles of forests.
Guess what?
The Forests grow back.
It's not that anyone wants to destroy
but dead wood decomposes very slowly and nature uses lightning to change the molecular structure of the atmosphere.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/NitrogenCycle.html
It also makes fire.
My best guess is that Obama is just like his predecessors
and wants to prolong the status quo.
Life is a dynamic force and demands change.
Death is not an end but a door.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Now that's not real productive, is it?
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime!
Chinese Proverb.
This is why we pay teachers a decent wage.
Every one of us is in need.
Steal?
You can not steal from me what I have freely given to you
"This is lesson that I learned today; that you can not steal from me that which I have already freely given to you. If I take on the heart of a servant, and give to you that which you have tried to take from me–you have lost your power over me. You cannot harm me, you cannot rob me, and you cannot manipulate me; you are not empowered to any longer."
http://thenewheretics.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/you-can-not-steal-from-me-what-i-have-freely-given-to-you/
Freedom is a responsibility and a right.
Now that was beautiful.
Irony, sarcasm, simplicity.....all wrapped up in truth, God and the American way!
It's almost inhuman to believe that the general health of Americans should be used as a division in America.
Perhaps we don't have a 'right' to health care.
I don't believe that the free market has a right to deny it.
I don't want to believe that we can't afford it.
We are all subject to the natural end that must be.
Let's do it with a little dignity!~
World gold price is subject to currency values.
Here's a gaggle of charts pertaining to gold.
What is important to NUGT is the
$BPGDM (Gold Miners Bullish Percent Index)
GDX (of course)
Gold Market Update
By: Clive Maund
-- Posted Sunday, 24 February 2013
http://news.goldseek.com/CliveMaund/1361714043.php
Let the 'sequester' stand!
If Obama won't take credit for it then he's the fool!
We need to limit the violent military presence we have in our world.
Unfortunately, our political leaders and military won't consider cutting our costs overseas.
Finally! You're starting to understand the correlation between the Bush Administration with Paulson asking for an unlimited amount of money from Congress and no questions....
And Obama's Treasurer, Geithner, need to bail out banking.
You've got one thing wrong:
It's not America that must fail.
"B"? I'll post 'B' on your boards.
See you there!
Thanks Sox and you, Peg.
Peg, you've seen the thousands of offices and non descriptive buildings that surround the beltway of Washington DC.
Filled with administrators and managers payed by the Federal Government.
I couldn't tell you what they do.....
Facilitate bureaucratic indecision? My best guess.
It's crazy.
The entrance to a collection of buildings housing Government payed offices doesn't even have a name to describe it.
Crazy movie I just saw:
The more complex a biological entity evolves (like me and you),
the more energy is transferred.
The more transference is more interaction.
The more interaction reduces probabilities.....
Therefore:
The more probabilities we can influence will determine future events.
I have no Idea of what to do with all this power!
what the *bleep* do we know?
They vote for the party that signs the pay check!
Don't bull shit the posters on this board!
They LOVE Republicans!
Big Money creates Government jobs for the officious, bureaucratic,
ossification that rewards upper income salaries.
DC itself is a slum.