SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Knighty Tin who wrote (73614)12/11/2006 9:56:20 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
needed is Supreme Court to declare certain laws
as unconstitutional

trouble is, with terrorism perception, not gonna happen

what I want is proof of domestic terrorism
with full open forum to debate the evidence

unless and until, we have a march away from democracy

right under our stupidass noses

/ jim



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (73614)12/20/2006 8:59:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

blog.washingtonpost.com

More Troops? Come on.

Five years after Sept. 11, barely five weeks after a losing election, the President of the United States decides America needs a larger military?

These guys can't see past today's events to craft a strategy for tomorrow.

They say that the Army and Marine Corps has been stretched to a breaking point, that more troops are needed to fight the "long war" against global terrorism.

I might be convinced that America might need a larger (or different) military to address the challenges it will face in the future. But what it needs FIRST is to get out of the Iraq, a move that would instantly alleviate the pressures on today's military.

And America needs a larger non-military. Whether it's Iraq, drugs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, hurricane Katrina, or the increase in domestic crime it is so clear only Washington can't see that our tendency to see a military solution to everything is not only wrong but has had profound negative effects.

Yesterday, President George W. Bush told The Washington Post that he plans to increase the size of the U.S. armed forces.

Bush has ordered Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to develop a plan to add tens of thousands of permanent "end strength" to the Army and Marine Corps.

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines," the President said.

News also came yesterday that Gen. John Abizaid, the overall commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, plans to retire in March. The Arabic speaking Abizaid was once seen as a soothing tonic after the bumbling Gen. Tommy Franks skedaddled from the scene less than a month after "victory" in Iraq in 2003. Culturally aware, politically sensitive, polished, he has reportedly been offered higher posts in the government.

Some in the Pentagon view Abizaid's departure as part of a bigger plan for a "new" strategy in Iraq, as if he is responsible for putting us in the losing column. The conventional wisdom is that Abizaid has "resisted" efforts to increase troop levels. As I wrote on Monday, the truth is far more complicated.

But the truth is that if the Pentagon indeed is intent on doing something really different in Iraq, then it is a repudiation of what has already been done. Confirmation of this theory would mean that Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has to be the next to go, along with Gen. Peter Pace, who has turned out as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to be a visionless yes-man.

The Los Angeles Times reports that a leading candidate to replace Abizaid is Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, an even more polished, media-friendly, soldier intellectual, which commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the 2003 war. Petraeus later deployed to northern Iraq, where he led the early "training" effort of Iraq forces, and has since driven Army counter-insurgency doctrine from Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

Maybe Petraeus is the Godsend everyone says he is: I guess I see him instead as captain of two losing teams, the stand up/stand down strategy, which these same guys thought was working, and the now abandoned effort to defeat the insurgency and provide security for the population, a strategy that never was and a play book that is not even being eyed as the plan for the future.

There are other candidates, but Petraeus anchors the "thinking" team so can I say soothing to Washington big brains, with the notion that a victory in Iraq is more than just military. Uh, just like Abizaid. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"We need to reset our military," the President said yesterday.

Indeed we do. But creating yet another "Study Group" of intellectual generals isn't going to reset Iraq. As I've said many times here, the Iraqis themselves have got to want the victory there as much as we do. And right now, the majority doesn't seem to want anything close to what we want.

So we'll have a "surge," we'll have a plan to increase end strength -- an idea that has already been floated by many Democrats -- we'll have new leadership at the Pentagon and in Iraq. We'll have everything except the clarity to see that what we have and want isn't enough. The Pentagon will be left holding the bag, the people of Baghdad and New Orleans will equally suffer.



To: Knighty Tin who wrote (73614)1/2/2007 12:21:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Lucky 2007
______________________________________________________________

An equity shortage, a new M&A boom, a weak dollar, and lower interest rates point to another year of big winnings on Wall Street.

By James J. Cramer*

nymag.com

Companies don’t need the stock market anymore. Sure, investors love it when the market goes up, and those who own stocks make tons of money, as they did in 2006, a year that defied every skeptic in its march to record highs. But for many corporations and their managements, the stock market is just plain unnecessary, atavistic even. They don’t need the money the market can provide, and they hate the hassle of having a public stock. That’s why, in 2006, we got a record number of takeovers, mergers, and private-equity buyouts. And that’s why I think 2007 will be even bigger than 2006.

After the bountiful year every index had—despite endless Federal Reserve tightenings, a crashing dollar, an auto industry that could be in the crisis of its life, an oil price that wouldn’t quit rising, and a housing market that still can’t find bottom—you would think that 2007 would be a year of chickens coming home to roost. Although many of those problems remain, particularly Detroit’s unraveling, I don’t think they can stop 2007 from being a good year any more than they could stop 2006.

Here are some rosy yet realistic predictions for next year, a year in which the S&P 500 could rise as much as 15 percent if these factors play out this way. That prospective run won’t give you the kind of money that Morgan’s John Mack, Lehman’s Dick Fuld, Bear Stearns’ Jimmy Cayne, or Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein figure to make in another boom year for deals—but it could create a nice windfall over and above a prosaic paycheck.

First, as I’ve noted in this space before, we’re beginning to have an equity-supply shortage of mammoth proportions. For as long as I can remember, companies came public to tap the equity market, not to avoid it. They were perennially growing and in need of capital for hiring and building. But now the great American businesses are swimming with cash, far more than they need, thanks to record profit levels. That’s why 29 of the 30 Dow Industrials are buying back billions of dollars’ worth of shares instead of floating more equity to take advantage of higher prices. Yet hedge funds, mutual funds, and other institutional investors need stocks to invest in, and the great returns of 2006 are luring individuals back into the market for the first time in a half-decade. That combination, plus management’s newfound love affair with anything that removes them from the market, causes an equity scarcity, so the remaining stocks get bid up in value.

Second, for those managers who hate being public, and those under attack from hedge-fund managers demanding better performance, there’s plenty of money available to pay for going private. We saw, in 2006, the beginning of a new phenomenon: the rise of private-equity funds, pools of capital put together to buy companies, as drivers of higher prices. These funds are taking advantage of a chronic undervaluation of many companies, including ones worth $20 billion or even $30 billion. The undervaluation is a by-product of Wall Street’s love affair with hyperoxygenated growth, the kind that only smaller and midsize companies can provide. Mutual and hedge funds spurn companies with anything less than 10 to 15 percent growth, something that most old-line companies can’t provide. That leaves the stocks of hundreds of corporations, including many steady but unspectacular growers, such as big casino, semiconductor, hospital, and restaurant chains, unloved by the market.

A handful of savvy private-equity buyout firms, like Silver Lake, Bain, Texas Pacific, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Blackstone, have started to capitalize on this phenomenon. They approach managements fed up with their cheap stock price with an elixir: buy out the equity holders with a massive infusion of cash (backed by newly minted corporate bonds that take advantage of record-low interest rates). Then the new owners and management can revel in all the cash these companies generate and no longer have to share it with ungrateful shareholders. I see many candidates for private-equity buyouts in 2007, including Hershey, Barnes & Noble, Applebee’s, and KB Home, none of which get the rewards they deserve in the public markets.

Third, companies are getting a sense that the clock is ticking on many mergers now blessed by a Republican-controlled government. The Democrats’ midterm-elections rout was a reminder to CEOs that they’d better get their deals done now, before the White House changes hands. Right now we have a Justice Department antitrust division that basically serves as an adjunct to the Commerce Department, but that goes out the window if the Democrats—who actually have the audacity to care about things like monopolies and anti-competitive behavior, even if it means lower stock-market prices—take over all three branches of the federal government. Look for the airline companies to team up (United and Continental, as well as US Airways and Delta, have already jump-started that process). And look for giant mergers in telecom, oil, drugs, and health care, all areas the Democrats are likely to scrutinize. I like Qwest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ConocoPhillips, UnitedHealth, and Humana as companies that could be snapped up by rivals before the Democrats can stop them.

Fourth, pundits come on the air all the time and fret about how a weak dollar could hurt the stock market. Ignore them. The weak dollar causes our companies to get acquired at bargain prices by companies in countries with stronger currencies, especially those denominated in euros. Look for major companies like U.S. Steel, Alcoa, Colgate-Palmolive, Weyerhaeuser, and the stumbling Yahoo to be bought in 2007 by overseas entities taking advantage of a declining greenback.

Finally, the ongoing decline in housing and the worries about car manufacturers should cause the Federal Reserve to cut its base interest rate to as low as 4 percent, from its current 5-plus level. That will bring more money into the stock market, where the rates of return will make the risk-free rewards of cash seem paltry.

How can you take advantage of all of this? You can take the shotgun approach and buy your favorites among the above candidates for acquisition. But I think even better is the rifle approach. Pick, to extend the metaphor, the original arms merchants for all of these deals: the investment banks. The teams from Goldman, Morgan and the like will all get fat vigs from these deals.

Some would say it’s tough to come into this market after its double-digit returns. To them I would say, it’s only now that we have gotten back to where we were six years ago. In other words, you ain’t missed nothing yet.

*James J. Cramer is co-founder of TheStreet.com. He often buys and sells securities that are the subject of his columns and articles, both before and after they are published, and the positions he takes may change at any time. E-mail: jjcletters@thestreet.com.