Obama fails to get Nobel Prize in Economics
Lu Powell
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace
prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economic Sciences Monday.
While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the
nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for
economics.
The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to
wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil
CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent
bureaucrats.
From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the
seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform"
act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few
figures have in recent years.
Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure
academics -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work
on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction
costs. See full story on the Nobel winners.
Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael
Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of
the U.S. national economic council.
It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in
protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.
-- Tom Bemis, assistant managing editor
Canuck57
His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?
wf3h
>
> LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace
> prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in
> Economic Sciences Monday.
>
> While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the
> nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for
> economics.
>
> The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to
> wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil
> CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent
> bureaucrats.
now let's see...the bureaucrats did nothing to my 401K last year
the free market folks cost me 35% in 1 year.
objective evidence says go with the bureaucrats
Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few
> figures have in recent years.
as i said, the free market folks killed me. and the depression started
in december of 2007
george bush was president. the right wing thinks obama's been
president for 8 years.
and yet they think they're experts on economics...
ah, right wing fairy tales...so sweet
so wrong
wf3h
>
> His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
> months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?-
what's really a record is how quickly george bush and his rich free
market friends stole my 401K
H the K
At this point, there's little question that "the government" is far more
honest and accountable than the "free market" corporations.
I wonder if Lu realizes his pension check, which shows up every month in
his bank account, gets there because government bureaucrats make it happen.
--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All
Jim
So sorry for your loss. Too bad you don't have at least some control of
your 401. You might look at fixing that instead of blaming the boogyman.
wf3h
i did have control. i did what the right wing said to do: trust the
rich.
my corrective action is not to trust the rich anymore...you're too
stupid to learn that
Jim
Canuck57
Look at the obvious, as soon as it looked like the Mesiah BO was going
to get elected the market tanked. The bubble burst as it knew the
economy couldn't take more liberal debt spending yet that is what was a
happening.
But you are a true liberal, lots of excuses.
Canuck57
He should fix it. My funds have recovered nicely.
John H
He has blamed everyone *but* the person responsible for his terrible
loss - himself.
CalifBill
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:ea8805ae-5bd8-48e3...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
And Obama gave a trillion bucks to the same rich people. Enough so that
bankrupt AIG could give million in bonus bucks. Enough that Bankrupt
GoldmanSaks could give out 6.5 billion bucks. Yup, Obama is taking care of
the idiots oops make that non rich people.
thunder
> Look at the obvious, as soon as it looked like the Mesiah BO was going
> to get elected the market tanked. The bubble burst as it knew the
> economy couldn't take more liberal debt spending yet that is what was a
> happening.
>
> But you are a true liberal, lots of excuses.
Do you make this up as you go along? I won't blame Bush for this
economy. It is, after all, a free market. The facts are, however, the
Dow reached it's all time high, in October, *2007*. By July, 2008, it
was off that high by 20%, and heading down, not bottomed, but already
tanked. The National Conventions hadn't occurred yet, and, McCain and
Obama, were running even in the polls in August.
I may be a liberal, but you don't let facts get in the way, do you?
Canuck57
Instead of envy, distrust and hate of the rich, learn to think like
them. They have people paid big bucks to keep them out of financial
trouble, certainly more than you or I can afford.
When government said nothing to worry about re-debt markets in 2007 and
again in 2008, this was your/our first red flag.
The second one was interest rates versus deposit yeild rates inverting.
A huge red flag as it has been a reliable indicator of recession for
over 100 years.
You can sit on your arse and bitch about the rich, but there are good
reasons why they have money and you do not. And the reason is simple,
they do their research and humbly and rationally know the markets on how
they really operate. They don't get sucked into BO feel good talk, it
is about rationale and the numbers. Nothing else.
wf3h
really? i caused the collapse of the economy?
well let's tally up shall we?
the right wing believes i personally am responsible for the collapse
of the economy
it also believes obama's been president for the last 8 years
and on that basis it thinks it has everything figured out..
no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election
Canuck57
> objective evidence says go with the bureaucrats
And have nothing?
LMAO.
Canuck57
> At this point, there's little question that "the government" is far more
> honest and accountable than the "free market" corporations.
Hahaha... you really do have your head between your knees.
Government could never operate on the same priciples as Sarbanes-Oxley
or SEC, in fact can you download a finacial statement and balance sheet
for the US government? Hell no. They don't know themselves.
> I wonder if Lu realizes his pension check, which shows up every month in
> his bank account, gets there because government bureaucrats make it happen.
No, the taxpayer makes it happen. Government does sh1t to make it
happen, they just skim it as it passes through.
H the K
Herring helped the U.S. lose the war in vietnam.
--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All
Jim
> On Oct 12, 12:23 pm, John H <salmonremoveb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:40:01 -0400, Jim <?@?.com> wrote:
>>> wf3h wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 10:55 am, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
>>>>> months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?-
>>>> what's really a record is how quickly george bush and his rich free
>>>> market friends stole my 401K
>>> So sorry for your loss. Too bad you don't have at least some control of
>>> your 401. You might look at fixing that instead of blaming the boogyman.
>> He has blamed everyone *but* the person responsible for his terrible
>> loss - himself.
>
> really? i caused the collapse of the economy?
>
> well let's tally up shall we?
>
> the right wing believes i personally am responsible for the collapse
> of the economy
>
> it also believes obama's been president for the last 8 years
>
> and on that basis it thinks it has everything figured out..
>
> no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election
Wrong on all points.
And unless you change your thinking, you will continue to be a loser.
H the K
This is funny: Canukistan thinks big corporations act honestly.
--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All
Canuck57
> On Oct 12, 12:23 pm, John H <salmonremoveb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:40:01 -0400, Jim <?@?.com> wrote:
>>> wf3h wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 10:55 am, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
>>>>> months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?-
>>>> what's really a record is how quickly george bush and his rich free
>>>> market friends stole my 401K
>>> So sorry for your loss. Too bad you don't have at least some control of
>>> your 401. You might look at fixing that instead of blaming the boogyman.
>> He has blamed everyone *but* the person responsible for his terrible
>> loss - himself.
>
> really? i caused the collapse of the economy?
Indirctly, yes, as a collective society we did by voting for irrational
leadership. Politicial types we worship often toss sustainability out
with the garbage when temptation and payolla are greasing the wheels.
Congress handling of monitary policy is not sustainable yet they keep on
doing it. So don't watch their lips, watch their actions.
> well let's tally up shall we?
>
> the right wing believes i personally am responsible for the collapse
> of the economy
Not personally, but collectively yes. People vote for big talk, jive
turkeys (white, black or other) and feel good statements. They don't
vote with rationality, sustainability or integrity in mind.
Americans don't want to hear that the government is grossly and
liberally overspending to a point that it can't work. They don't want
to hear that interest rates are 10% too low and should be allowed to
float to market and not governemnt rates. They don't want to hear that
until we straighten out this mess, employment will be lousy and the risk
of economic collapse is pending.
Nope, easier to say Heil Obama or the Mesiah Obama will make my car
payments.
Same symptoms as a defunct about to go bankrupt insatiable debtor has.
> it also believes obama's been president for the last 8 years
By your logic, I could blame Obama mama's $1.3 debt spend on Abraham
Lincoln. No one put a gun to Obama's head to debt-corruption-spend. He
could have ended the recession like Reagan did, take less and reap the
rewards through more economic activity.
Show me a politician that recognizes the elasticity of taxation much
less knows what it means. All government knows is that it wants to be
bigger, obease and control more of your life.
Health care, it isn't about helping people. Government wants to skim
part of the action, just like they do in Canada and the UK. $1 for
health care becomes 33 cents of health care, 33 cents of burocracy bloat
and 34% pork spending.
Take Ottawa Canada, it costs more than 25% of total revenue to run
government, to doll out 7% of total income for health care. And
Canadians pay a lot of taxes.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
>
> > my corrective action is not to trust the rich anymore...you're too
> > stupid to learn that
>
> Instead of envy, distrust and hate of the rich, learn to think like
> them. They have people paid big bucks to keep them out of financial
> trouble, certainly more than you or I can afford.
how does one think like a thief who bribes politicians when one has no
money to bribe politicians?
>
> When government said nothing to worry about re-debt markets in 2007 and
> again in 2008, this was your/our first red flag.
me and ever nobel prize winning economist on the planet.
>
> You can sit on your arse and bitch about the rich, but there are good
> reasons why they have money and you do not.
yeah. they inherit it and bribe politicians to game the system so we
have NO choice BUT to invest with them.
so the REAL answer is to change the system instead of doing like YOU
recommend which is to pat them on the back for being such good thieves
And the reason is simple,
> they do their research and humbly and rationally know the markets on how
> they really operate.
bullshit. pure bullshit. if they did so, they wouldnt have to come to
me and ask me to bail them out after they stole my money
what the hell do you smoke?
Canuck57
Actually, I don't trust either. But I trust government even less. See,
I can, except for GM and banks, sell my stock and not have anything to
do with a corporation. I can't get away from government greed.
I know I sound cynical on government, but for years I could not make
sense of a lot of things in the market and governments behavior. When I
started to think of the government as a herd manager to manage people
for the back room boys pulling the strings at the top, lots of things
became quite predictable.
And I have profited by the new attitude towards looking at government.
Now, when I invest I consider government interferances just as much as
their balance sheet.
wf3h
> And unless you change your thinking, you will continue to be a loser.-
hey jim
who's president? if i'm a 'loser'
then why did the GOP just get wiped out in the last election?
not too swift, are you?
John H
wrote:
You're not paying attention.
You didn't cause the collapse of the economy. *YOU* caused the
collapse of *YOUR* 401K.
You need to accept responsibility (and I know it's difficult for a
liberal) for *your* actions (or inaction), cry a river, build a
bridge, and get over it.
Jim
1/3 here. I wasn't quick enough to move it.
In hindsight, when Bush made that speech a year ago, where he
said,"Because of my incredibly bad leadership, you are all fucked," I
should have moved it right then.
I remember being amazed at that speech. I've never heard a president
panic the stock market as bad as that. I should have known what the
effects would be.
We were all taught the best tactic was to make your choices based on the
long term, don't move it around very often.
Following that advise makes it my fault I lost.
All the bitching about Obama's economy makes me wonder if anyone was
paying attention to the last 8 years.
nom=de=plume
news:74SdnT-sF5LS5E7X...@earthlink.com...
My portfolio went down about 30%, but I didn't panic and basically stopped
looking. I finally checked last month, and I was about $200K. I believe in
dollar cost averaging, so I figured I'd be ok. I've been using that strategy
since I started earning money.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Jim
Last time I checked, O'Bama was president. Didn't you know that?
Are you taking credit for McCain losing the election? Sure sounds like it.
Someone, who writes like you do, can't possibly know if someone else is
"swift".
Jim
I'll second everything you said.
I now know that I should actively manage my 401, daily. Long term, yes,
but watching for a president that panics people is more important. A
financial planner I saw told me I should invest according to my risk
tolerance. Duh.
I keep moving my risk from about 6% to 30% and then back again. I'd
like to risk more, but am unsure, now, exactly how to do this managing.
It was all so much easier until a year ago when we all were hit in the
face with the realities of what can happen.
Thankfully I took personal finance in college and learned some things.
I feel badly for those who didn't attend college or didn't learn from
personal finance courses.
Those are the guys deeply in debt and can't figure out what to do about it.
Jim
The more you want to make the more you have to risk. At this point in my
life I'm in preservation mode and this market didn't hurt me too badly.
Younger folks that took heavy losses will eventually recover if they
don't get greedy and try to get their money back too quickly.
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ea8805ae-5bd8-48e3...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 10:55 am, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
> > months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?-
>
> what's really a record is how quickly george bush and his rich free
> market friends stole my 401K
>
> And Obama gave a trillion bucks to the same rich people.
they left him no choice. they trashed the banking system then told the
middle class they'd lend no money unless we paid for their mistakes
Enough so that
> bankrupt AIG could give million in bonus bucks. Enough that Bankrupt
> GoldmanSaks could give out 6.5 billion bucks. Yup, Obama is taking care of
> the idiots oops make that non rich people.
idiots like george bush
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 12:59 pm, Jim <?@?.com> wrote:
> >> wf3h wrote:
>
> >>> no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election
> >> Wrong on all points.
> >> And unless you change your thinking, you will continue to be a loser.-
>
> > hey jim
>
> > who's president? if i'm a 'loser'
>
> > then why did the GOP just get wiped out in the last election?
>
> > not too swift, are you?
>
> Last time I checked, O'Bama was president. Didn't you know that?
ah. so you finally caught up? doesn't do much to call someone a loser
if their party's in the whitehouse, does it?
>
> Are you taking credit for McCain losing the election?
me and the rest of america who got fed up with right wing lies
Canuck57
> On Oct 12, 12:35 pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> wf3h wrote:
>>
>
>>> my corrective action is not to trust the rich anymore...you're too
>>> stupid to learn that
>> Instead of envy, distrust and hate of the rich, learn to think like
>> them. They have people paid big bucks to keep them out of financial
>> trouble, certainly more than you or I can afford.
>
> how does one think like a thief who bribes politicians when one has no
> money to bribe politicians?
Don't mistake real capitalist-conservatives with corrupted types. Big
difference. You can be a leftist-socialist and corrupt, in fact that is
where the worst of it is.
Because the left promises a lot, delivers little but to the coffers of
the government.
Corruption from any sector, be it business or government robs from us all.
>> When government said nothing to worry about re-debt markets in 2007 and
>> again in 2008, this was your/our first red flag.
>
> me and ever nobel prize winning economist on the planet.
>> You can sit on your arse and bitch about the rich, but there are good
>> reasons why they have money and you do not.
>
> yeah. they inherit it and bribe politicians to game the system so we
> have NO choice BUT to invest with them.
I don't bribe politicians, but anticipating the non-causal relationship
between the CEO's of GM, Chrysler, Ceberus, Carlyle etc. sure rewarded
me, I bough Ford at $2.50 or less and sold out at $6.50 or more. Nice
ROI in betting on GMs futures would unfold the way they did. Because I
understood the government would bailout GM for it's politicial
connections are strong. Which left Ford in a better position.
I subscribe to the saying that investing is like chess. A game of
strategy, logic and emotions best checked into the toilet. Which
included liberal media BS.
Of course we have to invest! If you let $100 sit in a bank account then
you loose money. Money, cash, it's a deprediating asset. It's value is
in liquidity to trade, nothing more.
> so the REAL answer is to change the system instead of doing like YOU
> recommend which is to pat them on the back for being such good thieves
Pat who? I never suggested patting anyone. If it were myself as
president back in Feb/Mar in talking with GM's Wagoner, I would say to
Wagoner "I think you should declare bankruptcy now as if you go on with
this rouse the SEC will pay you an Enron like visit."
But I was banking on Wagoner from Harvard having pull and he wanted his
$20M retirement. See, if GM went down, Ford would have supply problems.
But if GM took the PR hit on bankruptcy, and made solvent, Ford would
do well.
> And the reason is simple,
>> they do their research and humbly and rationally know the markets on how
>> they really operate.
>
> bullshit. pure bullshit. if they did so, they wouldnt have to come to
> me and ask me to bail them out after they stole my money
Only the corrupt ones are. And your politicians are too corrupt
themselves to do the right thing.
> what the hell do you smoke?
Nothing. Don't even drink, ok, one beer in the last year.
John H
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 12:35�pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
They didn't come to you. 'Bama came to you. And, like a dummy, you
said OK.
Canuck57
Who knows, maybe I am wrong. But none the less, the smell of more
liberal democrats scared me to liquifing to about 70%+ cash, something I
haven't done since 1991. And since I seem to make/preserve money doing
it, be the analysis right or worng I plan on sticking with it. Left me
in a very good position.
wf3h
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
guess you forgot bush was president the last 8 years.
i'll just keep repeating this since it's obvious you have alzheimer's
wf3h
> H the K wrote:
> > At this point, there's little question that "the government" is far more
> > honest and accountable than the "free market" corporations.
>
> Hahaha... you really do have your head between your knees.
>
> Government could never operate on the same priciples as Sarbanes-Oxley
> or SEC, in fact can you download a finacial statement and balance sheet
> for the US government? Hell no. They don't know themselves.
why not try downloading one say, from bernie madoff?
try telling us how honest that one was?
ever take an accounting course?
Jim
Duh.
Jim
Bush set the stage for the bailouts. He stalled and let Obama do the
dirty work.
To those who listen to the well organized Republican "keep it on track"
messages, Obama is the bad guy. Only works if you ignore the last 8
years of irresponsibility. Easy to do if you get your news from the Fox
News Corp.
John H
wrote:
>On Oct 12, 12:59�pm, Jim <?@?.com> wrote:
>> wf3h wrote:
>
>>
>> > no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election
>>
>> Wrong on all points.
>> And unless you change your thinking, you will continue to be a loser.-
>
>hey jim
>
>who's president? if i'm a 'loser'
>
>then why did the GOP just get wiped out in the last election?
>
>not too swift, are you?
Haven't you been doing all the whining about 'losing' all your money?
Wouldn't one who loses his money earn the name 'loser'?
Canuck57
Then by that logic, Bush should get the Nobel prize Obama just got.
Can't have it both ways and say there is a rational bone in your body.
Vic Smith
Should have watched this commercial, and gotten real about protecting
his green bones from the Wall Street dogs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7bGBUlx2M
One smart mutt.
--Vic
CalifBill
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:7a8b3093-70b2-4a32...@f21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 12, 12:23 pm, John H <salmonremoveb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:40:01 -0400, Jim <?@?.com> wrote:
> >wf3h wrote:
>
> >>> His achievement was $1.3 trillion debt-corruption-spend in only 8
> >>> months. Guinness Book of records material perhaps?-
>
> >> what's really a record is how quickly george bush and his rich free
> >> market friends stole my 401K
>
> >So sorry for your loss. Too bad you don't have at least some control of
> >your 401. You might look at fixing that instead of blaming the boogyman.
>
> loss - himself.
really? i caused the collapse of the economy?
well let's tally up shall we?
the right wing believes i personally am responsible for the collapse
of the economy
it also believes obama's been president for the last 8 years
and on that basis it thinks it has everything figured out..
no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election
It started under Clinton. Bush did not help the situation. But Clinton
wanting to make sure of his reelection partnered up with ACORN and gave the
OK for lots of loans that were not able to be repaid. Paulson and Wall
Street jumped on these loans and turned them in to bonds, gave them a AAA
rating and sold them to the 401K's, etc. The next foreclosure wave is
starting. The $500k homes. people making $50k a year can not afford the
loan on a home 10x their income. Clinton's appointee Raines, should have
had to return all the stolen money, times maybe 2x and gone to jail. but
the Justice dept under the Executive branch cuts a deal with him for the
return of $5 million and lets him keep the $95 million.
John H
Now I'll think of poor wf3h every time I see that commercial.
nom=de=plume
I actually don't believe in the daily management of investments. I look
once, maybe twice a quarter. If see something is out of wack with my
long-term plan, then I adjust accordingly. Otherwise, I'm loath to do
anything or make a change. The biggest loser in my portfolio is my real
estate mutual fund. But, there's no reason to panic about it. It'll come
back eventually. It really depends on how long you have. If you're in the
later part of your working career, then you should slowly but deliberately
be moving toward a lower-risk mix of stocks, bonds, and real property. In my
case, I have (I'm hopeful) 20+ years before I'm in the later part. I have a
pretty volitile mix, but I can stand it if I don't look too much. lol
I have a friend who has her stuff "managed" by Fidelity's program. She's
doing fine, but giving up a few percent so she doesn't have to do anything.
I'd rather do it myself (you can follow their advice without having to pay
for it with just a tiny bit of research) and save the percent.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Well, to give him credit, he is right, and many people don't follow that
simple advice.
He can apologize to me anytime for his rude behavior. lol
--
Nom=de=Plume
Jim
Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize, not for economics. That's a different
subject. Are you really that dumb?
Bush started too many wars that didn't need to happen to get a peace
prize. The economic results weren't any better, eliminating any chance
for that prize either.
The Afghanistan war was so poorly managed that we spent 7 years fighting
with no actual accomplishment. That should warrant a jail term, not a
peace prize.
History won't be kind to Bush and I'm sure he knows it.
nom=de=plume
news:08CdnbjQza2NCE7X...@earthlink.com...
You should really drop the ACORN nut. It's stale and has no nutritional
value. It's an empty shell of an argument. Ok, enough puns for the day...
--
Nom=de=Plume
Jim
Jim
"Duh" was a bit rude. I should have just agreed with him and moved on.
All of the rules probably remain the same, the new wrinkle is the
realization that you can follow the rules and advice everyone gives and
loose a lot until you break the rules and put a top to the bleeding by
anticipating the market, which is/was against the advice to stay put.
Jim
This was according to the common advice of the day. After the losses, it
was pointed out that we should all take an active interest in our
investments. It was our fault we didn't act to protect our 401s.
I lost $80,000 in a couple of days that I could have saved if I were
more on top of it. I did save another $50,000 by putting my savings
plan on stable value.
I've made some of it back. Would be in a better place if I had acted
sooner. That's the lesson, don't put it on automatic and wait some
artificial time period.
The biggest loser in my portfolio is my real
> estate mutual fund. But, there's no reason to panic about it. It'll come
> back eventually.
Real estate is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme. When everyone was
refinancing weekly and buying property they couldn't possibly afford I
should have known.
It really depends on how long you have. If you're in the
> later part of your working career, then you should slowly but deliberately
> be moving toward a lower-risk mix of stocks, bonds, and real property. In my
> case, I have (I'm hopeful) 20+ years before I'm in the later part. I have a
> pretty volitile mix, but I can stand it if I don't look too much. lol
>
> I have a friend who has her stuff "managed" by Fidelity's program. She's
> doing fine, but giving up a few percent so she doesn't have to do anything.
> I'd rather do it myself (you can follow their advice without having to pay
> for it with just a tiny bit of research) and save the percent.
>
I decided to give my financial planner a miss. I know I have to manage
my money myself.
CalifBill
idiots like george bush
reply:
Go back to school and pay attention this time in Econ 101.
wf3h
>
> Then by that logic, Bush should get the Nobel prize Obama just got.
> Can't have it both ways and say there is a rational bone in your body.-
i'll type this slowly 'cuz i know you're a right winger and can't read
obama didn't win the ECONOMICS prize. see...economics deals with M O
N E Y
he won the PEACE prize because he decided to change bush's views on
destroying the world
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> > bankrupt AIG could give million in bonus bucks. Enough that Bankrupt
> > GoldmanSaks could give out 6.5 billion bucks. Yup, Obama is taking care of
> > the idiots oops make that non rich people.
>
> idiots like george bush
>
> reply:
> Go back to school and pay attention this time in Econ 101.
ROFLMAO!! graduate work in economics at the rauch school...
sorry, dude. your answer is no answer at all...typical for the right
wing
Canuck57
So you think Obama should get a Nobel prize for 8 months....
Yet isn't responsible for $1.3B trillion debt-spend in the same period???
You have a serious rationality disorder if you think that way.
I do agree with certain of your statements of the war, be it Bush or
Obama, we need to quit pandering to Afgan BS or get the hell out. Let
the Saudis fund their own protection. But there is no delivery of
pease, just US, Canadian and other dead friendlies.
nom=de=plume
Oh... I see what you're saying.
--
Nom=de=Plume
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
news:hb064l$4d0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Can not drop the nut. Is a critical part of the disaster.
CalifBill
Are you sure it was not the Runch School. If you had paid attention or
understood the material, you would not be broke. You economic activity says
very little for your economic education or the school you supposedly
attended.
CalifBill
Reply:
Where is the rauch school? James Rauch is an economic prof at UCSD, but is
not his school. It rauch equivalent to Wharton?
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a1d1a60-2231-4a52...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 7:31 pm, "CalifBill" <bmckees...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> > > bankrupt AIG could give million in bonus bucks. Enough that Bankrupt
> > > GoldmanSaks could give out 6.5 billion bucks. Yup, Obama is taking care
> > > of
> > > the idiots oops make that non rich people.
>
> > idiots like george bush
>
> > reply:
> > Go back to school and pay attention this time in Econ 101.
>
> ROFLMAO!! graduate work in economics at the rauch school...
>
> sorry, dude. your answer is no answer at all...typical for the right
> wing
>
> Are you sure it was not the Runch School. If you had paid attention or
> understood the material, you would not be broke. You economic activity says
> very little for your economic education or the school you supposedly
> attended.
ROFLMAO!!! hey idiot. me and a hundred million other hard working
americans are in the same boat...as is harvard's endowment.
i realize that 'faux news' tells you everything is fine 'cuz the bush
family is still rich, but to middle class america, ain't alot of fun
out here.
now go home and get your shinebox
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a1d1a60-2231-4a52...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 7:31 pm, "CalifBill" <bmckees...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>
> > > bankrupt AIG could give million in bonus bucks. Enough that Bankrupt
> > > GoldmanSaks could give out 6.5 billion bucks. Yup, Obama is taking care
> > > of
> > > the idiots oops make that non rich people.
>
> > idiots like george bush
>
> > reply:
> > Go back to school and pay attention this time in Econ 101.
>
> ROFLMAO!! graduate work in economics at the rauch school...
>
> sorry, dude. your answer is no answer at all...typical for the right
> wing
>
> Reply:
> Where is the rauch school? James Rauch is an economic prof at UCSD, but is
> not his school. It rauch equivalent to Wharton?
lehigh university. http://www3.lehigh.edu/business/default.asp
nom=de=plume
Come on... it's kind of looney to blame everything on one relatively small
organization. If you want to pick something to blame, pick Fox. They're just
a noisemaker for the right-wing, but lots of people just listen to them.
--
Nom=de=Plume
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Not just Acorn, but the pandering to it to get out the vote for the one in
power. Changing the rules on loans, so those in power at the time, could
buy votes. The melt down was the fact that the loans were made to those who
could not afford them. Then they were sold by Wall Street, the same people
who got the bail out "stimulus", as AAA bonds. Those who packaged them and
rated them should be in jail. but nope, Paulson and his buddies are sharing
billions of bail out bucks as bonus money. But ACORN was the major reason
for the loan changing. FreddieMac/FannieMae buying all loans.
nom=de=plume
In your opinion... people tend to leave that part out when they can't
actually show established facts.
--
Nom=de=Plume
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Not just my opinion.
nom=de=plume
No doubt, but that doesn't make the long rant fact-based either.
--
Nom=de=Plume
KotP-A
They were facts. You should face them.
nom=de=plume
news:207cd5ppigmb0fm7e...@4ax.com...
Please provide the references to each of you "points." Then, I'll face what
exists in the real world.
--
Nom=de=Plume
KotP-A
Last time I provided you references you squabbled.
Look 'em up yourself.
nom=de=plume
Right. Did that. Nothing found except right-wing rants. You seem very
concerned by ACORN, but have little or no concern about the right-wing
voting to force companies like Haliburton (who are taking lots and lots of
tax-payer money) to stop forcing employees to sign away their right to sue
(e.g., if they've been gang raped).
Here are some facts. I'd like to hear how you can justify this, which is
clearly a huge and disgusting issue:
Franken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators
who showed broad support for Roman Polanski by voting against it:
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:
Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business
interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide
range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.
Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
Maybe you should pass this along to your daughters. It might show that you
at least have the potential to learn something new.
--
Nom=de=Plume
John H.
<nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
I'll bet.
Nothing found except right-wing rants. You seem very
>concerned by ACORN,
I've said nothing about ACORN.
>but have little or no concern about the right-wing
>voting to force companies like Haliburton (who are taking lots and lots of
>tax-payer money) to stop forcing employees to sign away their right to sue
>(e.g., if they've been gang raped).
I've not been asked about the vote.
>
>Here are some facts. I'd like to hear how you can justify this, which is
>clearly a huge and disgusting issue:
I think that the bowing to the money guys is just as bad whether done
by Republicans or Democrats.
Please point out to me where I said I disagreed with the amendment.