Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: regli who wrote (62581)	1/22/2007 10:16:29 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

regli; The bid looks like it is only for the down payment only! You then need to go out and refinance the rest for a selling price of 392.000. steve

To: regli who wrote (62581)	1/22/2007 11:02:27 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Paul Krugman: Gold-Plated Indifference economistsview.typepad.com President Bush's Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow's State of the Union address. Mr. Bush's proposal won't go anywhere. But it's still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers. On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage... We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.” Wow. ... Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience... The uninsured don't need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible. [...] The only people the Bush plan might ...[help] are the people we're least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured ... while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break. ... Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase ... on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.” Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands? [...] What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives”

To: regli who wrote (62581)	1/22/2007 11:03:55 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

ron paul Before the U.S. House of Representatives Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it's intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops. Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It's disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed! Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. . . Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. ============= More at house.gov

To: regli who wrote (62581)	1/22/2007 11:08:28 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Insurgents wearing US uniforms kill 5 Americans in Karbala dailykos.com New details did emerge today about clashes in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead on Saturday. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor’s office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers. [Ed: Duh!] ... [A]ccording Iraqi officials [sic], the gunmen disguised their intent with military uniforms, American flak jackets, guns and a convoy of at least seven GMC sport utility vehicles. Karbala’s provincial governor, Akeel al-Khazaali, said the local police at a checkpoint on the city’s edge waved the vehicles through because they believed they held important Americans.... One sport utility vehicle had a sign on its back window warning drivers to stay back, in English and Arabic, the authorities said, a carbon copy of what some official American vehicles use. The sophisticated, brazen attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad’s bloodiest neighborhoods, where troops will live and work with Iraqi forces. One of the American military’s greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.

To: regli who wrote (62581)	1/22/2007 11:15:13 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Looks like the only hope the Republicans have is Hillary rallying the US for more war thecarpetbaggerreport.com In October, then-Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) said, “In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control … I think it's the responsibility of our government, internally, to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take? And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time.” That three-month deadline came and went a couple of weeks ago. To his credit, Warner is putting a new option on the table: "Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will introduce a resolution today “making clear that he does not support the President on increasing the troop levels in Iraq” and calling escalation “a mistake,” CNN's Dana Bash reports. Warner's resolution will be cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE). "Warner, the former Armed Services Committee chairman, is a “very influential voice when it comes to military matters,” Bash reports, and until this fall had been “whole-heartedly behind the president and the war.” His new resolution “certainly…is not going to sit well with the White House.”" I think that's a safe assumption. Warner is considered an elder statesman of the Senate GOP caucus, in addition to being a credible, experienced voice on foreign policy and national security issues. If Warner steps away from the White House, he takes some Republican colleagues with him. For that matter, this isn't just a problem for the Bush gang of losing an influential GOP voice; it also undercuts the ongoing smear of White House critics. As recently as last week, Tony Snow argued that any congressional resolution, even a non-binding one, may lend comfort to our enemies. Is Snow, Rove, and the rest of the gang really prepared to impugn John Warner's patriotism?