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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (57202)	10/20/2012 12:29:19 AM
From: greatplains_guy	Respond to of 71588

America needs a turnaround, which is why I'm voting Romney By Lee Iacocca October 19, 2012 at 1:00 am I've seen a lot of situations that needed a turnaround in my time, and I know one when I see one. Trust me, America needs a turnaround. America is in deep trouble. After four years, economic growth is still anemic, our annual deficits were not cut in half as promised, and our staggering $16 trillion federal debt hangs over us and our kids like the plague. Our people are hurting, they can't find jobs, they have lost a major part of their net worth, the number of Americans living in poverty is at unacceptable levels, and we just aren't doing the things that would get our country back on the right track. Like any turnaround it must begin by honestly facing our problems; hope and speeches won't get our people back to work. It will require experienced leadership that can create and lead policy change that will enable a more robust and competitive America. We need leadership that understands that government, just like American families, can't continue to spend beyond its means. We must find leadership that won't pander to the people, but rather will speak honestly to them about our situation, explaining in simple terms what we have to do to get back on the right track. And we need leadership that can bring us together in a sense of shared responsibility so that we can move forward as a team. All of us. As Americans. America needs new leadership Mitt Romney has successfully led both public and private sector turnarounds. He is a bright and successful man; he is a good man, a caring man, a man of integrity, family and faith. Importantly, he recognizes we are in a tough situation. With dozens of years of real world experience in the public and private sectors, he knows what he's talking about. His policies will enable a stronger America, one in which all Americans can share. He was groomed and trained for this moment. The future of our country is at stake If you are out of work or worried about your job, having trouble making ends meet, are worried about your kids' future or your own, or if you just have a nagging sense that as Americans we can do better than this, it's time to wake up and stop just hoping it will all work out in a few more years. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it won't! It's time for straight talk. I'm asking you to vote for change that will get us moving in the right direction, and to be ready to be part of the solution. Everything depends on it. We don't have time to waste. It's time to make America great again. Vote for Mitt Romney for president. detroitnews.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (57202)	10/23/2012 9:18:00 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

About Those Horses And Ships Jonathan S. Tobin \| @tobincommentary 10.23.2012 - 1:10 AM At the foreign policy debate, President Obama thought he was putting something over on Mitt Romney when he acted as if the Republican was an imbecile for suggesting that the rapid decline in U.S. Naval strength was anything but a good idea: You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. That was quite a zinger. In one fell swoop, he portrayed the Republican as ignorant about defense issues and established himself as the competent commander-in-chief. Except for the fact that he was dead wrong and did himself far more political damage than good. Contrary to the president’s assertion, the creation of aircraft carriers and submarines did not mean that we needed fewer ships. Quite the contrary. Aircraft carriers need just as many if not more supporting vessels than the obsolete battleships that no are no longer under commission. So do subs. The decline in naval strength compromises America’s ability to project power abroad. That is particularly true in places like the Persian Gulf, where President Obama is trying to sound as tough with Iran as Romney. Even more foolish is the president’s attempt to portray contemporary naval vessels with cavalry horses. That says more about his own lack of understanding of the military than Romney’s. It also may cost him some votes in a state that he still hopes to win: Virginia, home of the largest U.S. Naval base in the country and hotbed of support for a stronger military. One more point about those horses and bayonets. For all of his contempt for them, it bears remembering that horses played a not insignificant role in the armed forces’ successful fight in Afghanistan, a point that Obama should have remembered. The Army and the Marines operating Afghanistan still use bayonets in close combat. The more you think about this supposed zinger, the more it sounds as if Obama made a fool of himself, not Romney. commentarymagazine.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (57202)	2/8/2013 9:26:45 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Prophets and Losses By Thomas Sowell - February 5, 2013 Now that the federal government is playing an ever larger role in the economy, a look at Washington's track record seems to be long overdue. The recent release of the Federal Reserve Board's transcripts of its deliberations back in 2007 shows that their economic prophecies were way off. How much faith should we put in their prophecies today -- or the policies based on those prophecies? Even after the housing market began its collapse in 2006, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in 2007, "The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained." It turned out that financial disasters in the housing market were not "contained," but spread out to affect the whole American economy and economies overseas. Then Chairman Bernanke said: "It is an interesting question why what looks like $100 billion or so of credit losses in the subprime market has been reflected in multiple trillions of dollars of losses in paper wealth." What is an even more interesting question is why we should put such faith and such power in the hands of a man and an institution that have been so wrong before. This is not just a question of a bad guess by Ben Bernanke. The previous chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, likewise misjudged the consequences of the housing boom and bust. Nor was the Federal Reserve's staff any more accurate in its prophecies. According to the New York Times, "The Fed's own staff still forecast that the economy would avoid a recession." Today, the economy has not yet fully recovered from the recession that the Federal Reserve System's staff and chairmen thought we would avoid. We all make mistakes. But we don't all have the enormous and growing power of the Federal Reserve System -- or the seemingly boundless confidence that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke still shows as he intervenes in the economy on a massive scale. Not only does the Federal Reserve System control the money supply and regulate banks, the Fed's willingness to keep buying hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of government bonds makes it easier for the Obama administration to keep engaging in massive deficit spending that runs up a record-breaking national debt. The reason that the Federal Reserve can afford to continue buying huge amounts of government bonds is that the Fed is authorized to create its own money out of thin air. They use the fancy term "quantitative easing," instead of saying in plain English that they are essentially just printing more money. Being wrong is nothing new for the Federal Reserve System. Since this year is the one hundredth anniversary of the Fed's founding, it may be worth looking back at its history. President Woodrow Wilson explained the reasons for creating the Federal Reserve System. He said that the Federal Reserve "provides a currency which expands as it is needed and contracts when it is not needed" and that "the power to direct this system of credits is put into the hands of a public board of disinterested officers of the Government itself" to avoid control by private bankers or other special interests. The Federal Reserve was supposed to prevent shocks to the economy that can come from drastic inflation or deflation, and reduce the dangers that can come from widespread bank failures. These are all good goals. But what is the Fed's track record? In the hundred years before there was a Federal Reserve System, inflation was less than half of what it became in the hundred years after the Fed was founded. The biggest deflation in the history of the country came after the Fed was founded, and that deflation contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s. As for bank failures, they reached levels unheard of before there was a Federal Reserve System. Like so many "progressives," then and now, Woodrow Wilson seemed to think that, if those who made government decisions had no financial interest in those decisions, then they could be trusted to wield their powers in the public interest. But the enormous power wielded by the unelected leaders of the Fed over the economy, unchecked by the constraints of the market, has repeatedly turned out to be more than human beings can handle. realclearpolitics.com