Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
However, it is educational in that I had no idea the tea party (which is "so last year", I haven't heard the term "tea party" used in months by the media ) is the only reason why we'll never get regulation and apparently is the ONLY party being completely bought off by the banks. lol.
As for the tea party, I almost look at it like creating a brand and marketing it to an audience - it's designed to sell a set of beliefs to an audience, whether or not the politicians behind the party have any care about the "set of beliefs" or not (maybe some of them do, but I'll be cynical and believe a fair amount of them would be willing to say whatever it takes to be elected.) I'm not saying anything about any of the parties and what they're about, because how can one really comment on the positives and negatives of various promises when they're largely empty?
Republican or Democrat - same thing these days - you may as well be debating Coke vs. Pepsi (although people debate Republican vs Democrat like they're debating religions or something), because the majority of politicians these days probably couldn't care less - they just want the lucrative benefits. Yet, people still somehow think their party is "good" and the other is "evil". They're both looking out for the 1% and they're looking for the money to keep them in office and keep making "promises" and selling to their core audience.
I gave you Tea Party because the tea party crowd were against the bailouts the banks have received. So, they selected these politicians to change that. In other words, they were specially selected to go against the usual standard in DC.
Instead banks changed their selected politicians. Or not.... since many amount these politicians were probably just taking advantage of the populist movement of the moment and had no intention to go against the banks. Like most politicians they were lying as well.
There is no question there are supporters in both republican and democratic party for banks and both party politicians are receiving large amount of funds from banks and wall street. But, I had to point to the irony since these ilk were supposed to change the system.
Like a drug addict banks and wall street is asking for less and less regulation and somehow fooling the people that they would do better if less regulation is on. Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice and shame on us. Once again with JPM fiasco we saw that that is full of crap shoot. But give a few months of silence, these addicts with sound their horns for less regulations again. Shame on us for allowing this. But if we do not hold the politicians on close leash we will continue to be fooled.
Maurice, I find it interesting that while those two are also getting donations, at least they are doing something to get some minimum rules in place, still even that was considered too much and special banking interest and their henchmen is doing everything to make the punch wrapped with velvet.
Reply to @Investor: The tea party was a "brand" that revolved around no more bailouts. Then ... you didn't (unless I just haven't been watching as much "Meet the Press" lately) hear much about that anymore, probably in part because of the reasons you mention. The Democratic party was going to get tough on Wall Street in 2008, then it didn't. We hear about how we have to cut spending and get our finances in order from both main parties, then we don't - or offer plans that do so over 30 years. Meanwhile, the country hasn't had a budget in three years.
Statements by Geithner and others that this country is serious about getting its finances in order are laughable - and famously literally were when Chinese students laughed at Geithner after he assured that China's dollar assets are safe. The hubris of Geithner and others in DC today is just extraordinary. More recently, Geithner was baffled on why the debt limit was such a discussion (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/geithner-comes-clean-i-dont-understand-it), blaming others on the fact that we have to have the discussion again so soon after we had it last August. It's always blame others. It's political, it's the other party. Europe is worse than us, so that somehow apparently means we can ignore and put off our own problems because theirs are worse. It's never because the country spent money even faster than it expected.
Geithner looks like he short circuited for a moment when asked the question. As for defaulting, we'll never default so that shouldn't be an element of the discussion - as Bernanke famously noted, "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." And, of course, nothing could go wrong with using it.
I agree with you that the tea party has seemingly changed (or at least significantly quieted) its anti-bailout stance considerably, but I think what I find concerning is that this continues to be a one-sided conversation about who to blame most rather than a conversation about the 99% realizing the reality that you have political parties that are, now more than ever, not really concerned with looking out for the needs of the many, but are more than happy to look out for the needs of the few. Nothing is probably going to get solved in this country until the majority starts to realize this and the majority of the country is not going to stop having the "Republican Vs. Democrat" discussion and start focusing their anger instead at DC in general to fix issues until the issues have gotten to a bad point.
"But, I had to point to the irony since these ilk were supposed to change the system."
Eh. That's probably the case, but it reminds me of the amount of people who are democrat or republican who agree with me that both parties are no longer looking out for the interests of the people, then proceed to add, "But the Republicans/Democrats are to blame for this, that and the other." People treat their political beliefs like religion, which is fascinating to me when it is altogether clear that many politicians will get behind the "Republican Brand" or "Democratic Brand" or "Tea Party Brand" to whatever degree it takes to get them into office. Many people do not seem willing to entertain the notion that their party may just have failed them, or at the very least no longer really cares beyond surface presentations about their needs/beliefs.
"Like a drug addict banks and wall street is asking for less and less regulation and somehow fooling the people that they would do better if less regulation is on."
"High frequency trading is good because it provides liquidity!"
It's not really fooling the people in regards to less regulation, it's the fact that the bailouts of these banks opened the Pandora's box of them not giving a crap about what they did (if one believes that the JP Morgan current situation is the only such situation on the books of major banks - lol), with the knowledge that they'd continually be bailed out. If things went bad again, they can just play the "Armageddon" card - "if you don't bail us out again, everything falls apart, and you don't want another 2008, do you?" The people don't and the politicians who want to be elected and don't know WTF the financial companies are doing and don't understand it will bail them out ASAP. Once this country went down the path of bailouts, it's not likely in the slightest that that will stop because now the banks can cry and scream and lobby and call "Armageddon" whenever anything goes wrong.
We have become a country of short-term fixes and I think it's starting to dawn on some people that it's not working or, at the very least, is resulting in significantly diminishing returns.
Another crisis will probably happen anyways when one of these banks turns into another Long Term Capital Management because of massive derivative bet that goes against them.
"at least they are doing something to get some minimum rules in place"
To me, that gives me as much confidence as someone telling me, "Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren is taking on evil-doers!" Rules will be written up simply to make it look as if something's being done, while money comes in to make sure nothing is. It's the circle of DC. Crap and cronies = cash for politicians.
Beyond mere bailouts, you have things that wreck investor trust in the system like Corzine/MF Global. That situation happens AND NO ONE GETS IN TROUBLE FOR IT.
I've said it a million times - the populace needs to get together and come to the realization that their political side will tell them whatever they think they want to hear to get into office while taking money from whoever will give it to them - even if it means going against promises ("I'm tough on Wall Street, but easy on all the monies they give me!"). Until then, politics has become highly lucrative (and that's not going to be fixed because what politician is going to vote for that?) and it's banks, corporations and high net worth parties who have the ear of politicians on both sides.
The tea party (a platform of no bailouts, then taking money) is not *the* problem, but an example of the *systemic* problem and why the political system in this country has become broken down.
sorry for the off topic post, I'll just delete the post. sorry to stirr up all the mess... but as US Citizen, I do dearly love this country [have seen much worse in other 3rd world communist country] I hope we all stand together and make this a better place for our kids/grand kids. I think the best solutions maybe raising taxes for the rich and also cutting some of the programs that other folks don't need. I am not a democrat nor republican but probably an I.... sorry to cause this mess... did not want to make any fire around here.
As above, both parties are looking out for the 1%. The Dems. at least pretend, with their strategic vocabulary, to worry about the average guy who is a wage slave and no benefits. Even the way the statistics get re-defined nonsensically happens under either/both parties. The smoke and mirrors is just taken for granted, as in this recent example: Lotsa people outa work for way too long. Their unemployment benefits run out, and still no job. But the unstated assumption is that such people will definitely find a job before unemployment bennies run out. THEREFORE, the ones whose U.B. have run out and are not yet employed again are labelled as "not looking for work anymore," and that number of people gets lopped off the Big Picture. So the Unemployment Rate doesn't look so bad.
Both of them--- Demublicans AND Repugnantcrats--- are worried about appearances, not reality. And the 1% doesn't need reality. They can buy their own reality. After all, when you're a "job creator," you DESERVE to have the world revolve around you, eh?
Reply to @MikeM: Eh, I think it's a counter-point. You may not agree with him. I don't agree with all of his points (I do agree with a few of them, don't agree with some, definitely don't agree with some, some are off the reservation), but it's his right to feel that way and I can pick some things that I agree with.
As for angry, someone should be angry that we had a 1.9GDP print this morning after QE1, QE2, twist and all manner of other BS.
People may not agree with each other in this country, but people have to realize that everyone's just trying to get through the day in a tough period and be willing to listen to each other and try to come to some understanding. As for him being upset, more people should be upset about where things have been allowed to go in this country - even if you don't agree with *his* reasons, there's something to be very upset (and/or disappointed, you pick) about in this country for everyone - republican or democrat, young/old, etc.
If I hear that asinine "job creator" crap one more time I'm gonna puke. The only jobs that those people "create" is maybe for the folks who tend their gardens, make their beds, and do their cooking. And I'd bet that the majority of those jobs are being done by "guest workers" who are not part of the Social Security system.
Reply to @Old_Joe: Interesting that you are listening to Rush enough to hear such things if you dislike him so much.
That said, I said I didn't agree with everything. I do, however, agree with some things. Bailing everyone out left and right has not done anything but make TBTF worse and gotten the country down a path where the market is addicted to QE. Additionally, QE1, QE2, twist, cash for clunkers and all manner of other BS, and we have a (bleepy) 1.9 GDP print. The EASIEST MONETARY POLICY IN HISTORY FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND WE GET A ONE-POINT-NINE GDP PRINT. Do you see anything wrong with that result, or not?
I've said it before - all short-term fixes rather than actual hard decisions, and the results aren't there. Now what? QE3? We need leadership willing to make difficult choices and approach structural problems with this country that need more than just short-term fixes. This administration wasn't it, and Romney's most likely won't be, either (if he is elected.)
Beyond that, you have a political system that largely seems bought on both sides by special interests (banks, etc.) When being a politician is so lucrative, why would they fix real structural issues that might be unpopular with someone? They're going to do whatever is takes to say the thing that big money and their core audience wants to hear.
So, nothing will actually get done because no politician wants to make difficult decisions that may actually lead to sustainable solutions but risk them not getting re-elected to their lucrative position. The system is no longer functioning in the way intended way back when, and the longer it functions in this manner, the worse the problems get.
People believe their side is looking out for them, which is starting to seem delusional when evidence just continues to suggest the contrary.
Additionally, I do think the idea of raising taxes on dividends while at the same time forcing people to search for yield is (bleep)y. There's other stuff too (Solyndra) that I find disappointing.
A lot I don't disagree with of the above, some I didn't understand ("give off the pipeline?"), but that's his opinion and I don't get all upset because he shared it. Not because I agree with all of it (as I noted above), but because I can step back, look at what he's saying, agree with a couple of things and move on. People are going to have to begin to listen to each other (even if people don't agree with each other) and have discussions in this country rather than get so angry at what they believe to be "the other side."
Given the fact that you have a political system that's so bought and distracted from playing political games, the eventual change is going to have to come from the populace as a whole willing to have discussions and put aside the divisive left/right BS and really start demanding change from both sides. I'm doubtful that will actually happen, though.
As I said above: "As for him being upset, more people should be upset about where things have been allowed to go in this country - even if you don't agree with *his* reasons, there's something to be very upset (and/or disappointed, you pick) about in this country for everyone - republican or democrat, young/old, etc."
Your adrenalin level must be pretty high this morning. As you should know by now, everything in my response was tongue-in-cheek, merely to illustrate the vacuousness of such diatribe. And I surely have much better things to do than listen to Rush.
There is no similarity between your reasoned observation, most of which I agree with as you surely know, and the spew of hatred in mindless rantings such as the one above. Am I disappointed in the current administration? Yes. Do I think that a vote for Mr. Romney will improve anything? No. Is there much new here? Probably not- remember Mark Twain's comment re "the US having the best Congress money can buy".
Reply to @scott: Of course everyone has a right to an opinion, but to blame all that John stated on Obama, well that is just plain ignorant. As for hate radio, there isn't one thing Obama could do and be praised for by that venue. If he raises taxes on the 1%, he's stealing "your" money. If he doesn't reduce the deficit (and increasing revenue has to be part of that) he's destroying the country. If he reduces US dependence on foreign energy (which has taken place under his administration) he is the devil for not allowing open drilling in every place the oil companies want. If he wants to put restrictions on big banks he's anti-capitalist. If restrictions don't get past he's in bed with the bankers. Obama is responsible for loosing jobs to China and to other 3rd world countries when that has been a trend for over 20 years??? Please...
My point is not about John's right to be angry or have his own opinion. It's about John's angry rant calling one man, one administration as being the cause of every problem in this world. As if we lived in a perfect world pre-2008!!! People should form their own opinions, not parrot a bunch of BS spewed out on the radio.
This rant makes me think of Reagan when he fired all the air traffic controllers. I think most people thought, "you can't do that". If the too big to fail guys weren't bailed out, then the remaining banks might shape up.
Reply to @Old_Joe: My intention was to keep it limited to Bankers and their influence and why we are unlikely to have a change.
It looks like John has stirred it really up. In other times, I would go over Johns points one by one but I'll let that pass, it is extreme right of the off-topic
Reply to @tip: The problem is TBTF is no joke. Bush administration could not do it. Obama administration could not do it. Failure of these banks causes chain reaction and smaller otherwise healthy banks could fail just as easily and that brings the crisis to main street as well. BTW, they did it in the great depression. A lot of banks failed. The damage to the economy was huge.
So, if failure is not an option, that these banks should be regulated like a utility. There is no other choice.
Geez, I'm a lifelong democrat (voting that is)that voted for Obama and I really can't see any difference between him and Georgie. I'm not kidding. And you've got the reli-nazis wanting to roll back the bill of rights and the magna carta. Are you sh***ing me. Most of the tea party peeps I see are racist cretins with little education and less sense being jerked around like puppets on a string.
Politically, I've voted democrat most always because the republican party has been hijacked by the foamers. Alas and alack. Actually, I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and socially tolerant civil libertarian.
Oh, and I AM running for office - local Township Trustee as a Republican Tree Hugger - who would relish being approached by the party idiots.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono . . . just your friendly, Tree Hugging, Dirt Munching Druid - republican candidate for office.
Are you noting "won't be back" as related to the investing markets or otherwise. If you are concerned about this particular thread, you must keep in mind that this was posted in the "off-topic" area. Past this, if you have been reading the fund threads for some time; you will understand that you will obtain most useful information regarding numerous fund types and what may or may not make them tick to suit your investment objectives. Don't be put-off by some political discussion. Many areas that are political and the many who profess their area of choice; be they the talking heads on radio and the tv do have impacts upon investments. I have not placed a comment to this thread, except for this reply to you. However, I do understand the feelings from many political directions and must be open to any and all comments; be they from elected officials, talking heads or the public in general. This is the one true method to help understand and obtain an objective view of the forces in play that are attempting to shape this nations directions; and in turn, its financial condition, which is directly related to one's investments. I listen and/or watch the many who state and argue their political positions; in order for me to better define the trinkets and pieces of arguements that may be valid for real solutions to problems. Be the thinking to the far left or right, as well as those to the center; there may be pieces of wisdom to be gained from all.
Reply to @johnN: No hard feeling John. This country is lucky to have hard working, good people like yourself. Americans have been arguing politics for hundreds of years. And one of the great things about our country is that we have the right to voice opinions. I guess that's what makes us different then a lot of other countries.
I believe citizens for the most part do want to work together and in a macro view have the same goals for the country. Seems it's the politicians and those that shout the loudest on the radio and television are the ones that divide us. And I dare say they do it for self interest, either to get re-elected or in the case of the media, getting higher ratings and more sponsors that put money in their pockets.
Comments
However, it is educational in that I had no idea the tea party (which is "so last year", I haven't heard the term "tea party" used in months by the media ) is the only reason why we'll never get regulation and apparently is the ONLY party being completely bought off by the banks. lol.
As for the tea party, I almost look at it like creating a brand and marketing it to an audience - it's designed to sell a set of beliefs to an audience, whether or not the politicians behind the party have any care about the "set of beliefs" or not (maybe some of them do, but I'll be cynical and believe a fair amount of them would be willing to say whatever it takes to be elected.) I'm not saying anything about any of the parties and what they're about, because how can one really comment on the positives and negatives of various promises when they're largely empty?
Republican or Democrat - same thing these days - you may as well be debating Coke vs. Pepsi (although people debate Republican vs Democrat like they're debating religions or something), because the majority of politicians these days probably couldn't care less - they just want the lucrative benefits. Yet, people still somehow think their party is "good" and the other is "evil". They're both looking out for the 1% and they're looking for the money to keep them in office and keep making "promises" and selling to their core audience.
Cynical? Probably, but it is what it is.
Simple as that.
I gave you Tea Party because the tea party crowd were against the bailouts the banks have received. So, they selected these politicians to change that. In other words, they were specially selected to go against the usual standard in DC.
Instead banks changed their selected politicians. Or not.... since many amount these politicians were probably just taking advantage of the populist movement of the moment and had no intention to go against the banks. Like most politicians they were lying as well.
There is no question there are supporters in both republican and democratic party for banks and both party politicians are receiving large amount of funds from banks and wall street. But, I had to point to the irony since these ilk were supposed to change the system.
Like a drug addict banks and wall street is asking for less and less regulation and somehow fooling the people that they would do better if less regulation is on. Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice and shame on us. Once again with JPM fiasco we saw that that is full of crap shoot. But give a few months of silence, these addicts with sound their horns for less regulations again. Shame on us for allowing this. But if we do not hold the politicians on close leash we will continue to be fooled.
Maurice, I find it interesting that while those two are also getting donations, at least they are doing something to get some minimum rules in place, still even that was considered too much and special banking interest and their henchmen is doing everything to make the punch wrapped with velvet.
Statements by Geithner and others that this country is serious about getting its finances in order are laughable - and famously literally were when Chinese students laughed at Geithner after he assured that China's dollar assets are safe. The hubris of Geithner and others in DC today is just extraordinary. More recently, Geithner was baffled on why the debt limit was such a discussion (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/geithner-comes-clean-i-dont-understand-it), blaming others on the fact that we have to have the discussion again so soon after we had it last August. It's always blame others. It's political, it's the other party. Europe is worse than us, so that somehow apparently means we can ignore and put off our own problems because theirs are worse. It's never because the country spent money even faster than it expected.
Geithner looks like he short circuited for a moment when asked the question. As for defaulting, we'll never default so that shouldn't be an element of the discussion - as Bernanke famously noted, "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." And, of course, nothing could go wrong with using it.
I agree with you that the tea party has seemingly changed (or at least significantly quieted) its anti-bailout stance considerably, but I think what I find concerning is that this continues to be a one-sided conversation about who to blame most rather than a conversation about the 99% realizing the reality that you have political parties that are, now more than ever, not really concerned with looking out for the needs of the many, but are more than happy to look out for the needs of the few. Nothing is probably going to get solved in this country until the majority starts to realize this and the majority of the country is not going to stop having the "Republican Vs. Democrat" discussion and start focusing their anger instead at DC in general to fix issues until the issues have gotten to a bad point.
"But, I had to point to the irony since these ilk were supposed to change the system."
Eh. That's probably the case, but it reminds me of the amount of people who are democrat or republican who agree with me that both parties are no longer looking out for the interests of the people, then proceed to add, "But the Republicans/Democrats are to blame for this, that and the other." People treat their political beliefs like religion, which is fascinating to me when it is altogether clear that many politicians will get behind the "Republican Brand" or "Democratic Brand" or "Tea Party Brand" to whatever degree it takes to get them into office. Many people do not seem willing to entertain the notion that their party may just have failed them, or at the very least no longer really cares beyond surface presentations about their needs/beliefs.
"Like a drug addict banks and wall street is asking for less and less regulation and somehow fooling the people that they would do better if less regulation is on."
"High frequency trading is good because it provides liquidity!"
It's not really fooling the people in regards to less regulation, it's the fact that the bailouts of these banks opened the Pandora's box of them not giving a crap about what they did (if one believes that the JP Morgan current situation is the only such situation on the books of major banks - lol), with the knowledge that they'd continually be bailed out. If things went bad again, they can just play the "Armageddon" card - "if you don't bail us out again, everything falls apart, and you don't want another 2008, do you?" The people don't and the politicians who want to be elected and don't know WTF the financial companies are doing and don't understand it will bail them out ASAP. Once this country went down the path of bailouts, it's not likely in the slightest that that will stop because now the banks can cry and scream and lobby and call "Armageddon" whenever anything goes wrong.
We have become a country of short-term fixes and I think it's starting to dawn on some people that it's not working or, at the very least, is resulting in significantly diminishing returns.
Another crisis will probably happen anyways when one of these banks turns into another Long Term Capital Management because of massive derivative bet that goes against them.
"at least they are doing something to get some minimum rules in place"
To me, that gives me as much confidence as someone telling me, "Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren is taking on evil-doers!" Rules will be written up simply to make it look as if something's being done, while money comes in to make sure nothing is. It's the circle of DC. Crap and cronies = cash for politicians.
Beyond mere bailouts, you have things that wreck investor trust in the system like Corzine/MF Global. That situation happens AND NO ONE GETS IN TROUBLE FOR IT.
I've said it a million times - the populace needs to get together and come to the realization that their political side will tell them whatever they think they want to hear to get into office while taking money from whoever will give it to them - even if it means going against promises ("I'm tough on Wall Street, but easy on all the monies they give me!"). Until then, politics has become highly lucrative (and that's not going to be fixed because what politician is going to vote for that?) and it's banks, corporations and high net worth parties who have the ear of politicians on both sides.
There's other huge issues, too, including student debt and the effect that will have, which is covered superbly in this article by Mark Cuban. That situation is going to get to a point where it's going to have to be addressed soner than later. http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/the-coming-meltdown-in-college-education-why-the-economy-wont-get-better-any-time-soon/
The tea party (a platform of no bailouts, then taking money) is not *the* problem, but an example of the *systemic* problem and why the political system in this country has become broken down.
(Well, I was going to until John's "commentary", below.)
I hope we all stand together and make this a better place for our kids/grand kids.
I think the best solutions maybe raising taxes for the rich and also cutting some of the programs that other folks don't need. I am not a democrat nor republican but probably an I....
sorry to cause this mess... did not want to make any fire around here.
Both of them--- Demublicans AND Repugnantcrats--- are worried about appearances, not reality. And the 1% doesn't need reality. They can buy their own reality. After all, when you're a "job creator," you DESERVE to have the world revolve around you, eh?
As for angry, someone should be angry that we had a 1.9GDP print this morning after QE1, QE2, twist and all manner of other BS.
People may not agree with each other in this country, but people have to realize that everyone's just trying to get through the day in a tough period and be willing to listen to each other and try to come to some understanding. As for him being upset, more people should be upset about where things have been allowed to go in this country - even if you don't agree with *his* reasons, there's something to be very upset (and/or disappointed, you pick) about in this country for everyone - republican or democrat, young/old, etc.
Slam-dunk, OJ.
That said, I said I didn't agree with everything. I do, however, agree with some things. Bailing everyone out left and right has not done anything but make TBTF worse and gotten the country down a path where the market is addicted to QE. Additionally, QE1, QE2, twist, cash for clunkers and all manner of other BS, and we have a (bleepy) 1.9 GDP print. The EASIEST MONETARY POLICY IN HISTORY FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND WE GET A ONE-POINT-NINE GDP PRINT. Do you see anything wrong with that result, or not?
I've said it before - all short-term fixes rather than actual hard decisions, and the results aren't there. Now what? QE3? We need leadership willing to make difficult choices and approach structural problems with this country that need more than just short-term fixes. This administration wasn't it, and Romney's most likely won't be, either (if he is elected.)
Beyond that, you have a political system that largely seems bought on both sides by special interests (banks, etc.) When being a politician is so lucrative, why would they fix real structural issues that might be unpopular with someone? They're going to do whatever is takes to say the thing that big money and their core audience wants to hear.
So, nothing will actually get done because no politician wants to make difficult decisions that may actually lead to sustainable solutions but risk them not getting re-elected to their lucrative position. The system is no longer functioning in the way intended way back when, and the longer it functions in this manner, the worse the problems get.
People believe their side is looking out for them, which is starting to seem delusional when evidence just continues to suggest the contrary.
Additionally, I do think the idea of raising taxes on dividends while at the same time forcing people to search for yield is (bleep)y. There's other stuff too (Solyndra) that I find disappointing.
A lot I don't disagree with of the above, some I didn't understand ("give off the pipeline?"), but that's his opinion and I don't get all upset because he shared it. Not because I agree with all of it (as I noted above), but because I can step back, look at what he's saying, agree with a couple of things and move on. People are going to have to begin to listen to each other (even if people don't agree with each other) and have discussions in this country rather than get so angry at what they believe to be "the other side."
Given the fact that you have a political system that's so bought and distracted from playing political games, the eventual change is going to have to come from the populace as a whole willing to have discussions and put aside the divisive left/right BS and really start demanding change from both sides. I'm doubtful that will actually happen, though.
As I said above: "As for him being upset, more people should be upset about where things have been allowed to go in this country - even if you don't agree with *his* reasons, there's something to be very upset (and/or disappointed, you pick) about in this country for everyone - republican or democrat, young/old, etc."
There is no similarity between your reasoned observation, most of which I agree with as you surely know, and the spew of hatred in mindless rantings such as the one above. Am I disappointed in the current administration? Yes. Do I think that a vote for Mr. Romney will improve anything? No. Is there much new here? Probably not- remember Mark Twain's comment re "the US having the best Congress money can buy".
My point is not about John's right to be angry or have his own opinion. It's about John's angry rant calling one man, one administration as being the cause of every problem in this world. As if we lived in a perfect world pre-2008!!! People should form their own opinions, not parrot a bunch of BS spewed out on the radio.
It looks like John has stirred it really up. In other times, I would go over Johns points one by one but I'll let that pass, it is extreme right of the off-topic
So, if failure is not an option, that these banks should be regulated like a utility. There is no other choice.
Geez, I'm a lifelong democrat (voting that is)that voted for Obama and I really can't see any difference between him and Georgie. I'm not kidding. And you've got the reli-nazis wanting to roll back the bill of rights and the magna carta. Are you sh***ing me. Most of the tea party peeps I see are racist cretins with little education and less sense being jerked around like puppets on a string.
Politically, I've voted democrat most always because the republican party has been hijacked by the foamers. Alas and alack. Actually, I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and socially tolerant civil libertarian.
Oh, and I AM running for office - local Township Trustee as a Republican Tree Hugger - who would relish being approached by the party idiots.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono . . . just your friendly, Tree Hugging, Dirt Munching Druid - republican candidate for office.
Abby
Are you noting "won't be back" as related to the investing markets or otherwise.
If you are concerned about this particular thread, you must keep in mind that this was posted in the "off-topic" area.
Past this, if you have been reading the fund threads for some time; you will understand that you will obtain most useful information regarding numerous fund types and what may or may not make them tick to suit your investment objectives.
Don't be put-off by some political discussion. Many areas that are political and the many who profess their area of choice; be they the talking heads on radio and the tv do have impacts upon investments. I have not placed a comment to this thread, except for this reply to you. However, I do understand the feelings from many political directions and must be open to any and all comments; be they from elected officials, talking heads or the public in general. This is the one true method to help understand and obtain an objective view of the forces in play that are attempting to shape this nations directions; and in turn, its financial condition, which is directly related to one's investments.
I listen and/or watch the many who state and argue their political positions; in order for me to better define the trinkets and pieces of arguements that may be valid for real solutions to problems. Be the thinking to the far left or right, as well as those to the center; there may be pieces of wisdom to be gained from all.
Regards,
Catch
http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2012/05/fdic-rule-change-ends-too-big-to-fail/?utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EconoMonitor Highlights: Future of Europe, Lessons from History, India's Trajectory
I believe citizens for the most part do want to work together and in a macro view have the same goals for the country. Seems it's the politicians and those that shout the loudest on the radio and television are the ones that divide us. And I dare say they do it for self interest, either to get re-elected or in the case of the media, getting higher ratings and more sponsors that put money in their pockets.
Good investing John...
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120601/OPINION03/206010317/1322/auto01/Businesses-fuel-state-comeback--not-politicians
personally, I think Dems/GOP should 'get out of the kitchen' and let these folks cook their own meals