Is there a single one of the current line-up that's worth a schit?

Gingrich sucks.
RP is batschit crazy.
Romney is Hussein-lite.
Johnson just screams RINO.
Huckster is out.
Trump is a sideshow...at best.
Daniels is nothing inspiring at all.

Cain might be "it", thus far....

Can we please draft West and Haley?

Left out Bachmann, Palin.

But yeah, I hear ya. Course, I've been in that place for 6 months already, glad you've arrived - it's been lonely.


End result.. anybody is better than Obama. But if we can win the Senate in a big way and not get rid of Obama, 2012 will still be a huge win.

Inspiring is overrated.

Daniels is an accountant at heart, and he knows how to turn a deficit around.

If we're all just willing to STFU up for four years over gay marriage, women in the military and abortion (hey, he just cut off state funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, so give him some credit!), we'll have a guy who can actually bring our slide into socialism to a screeching halt.

Or, we could just vote for a guy with great hair and teeth who's willing to tell us what we want to hear. In which case, same s**t, different party.

- Tom

I really like Herman Cane but I'm just not seeing it. West is too volatile and the MSM will take his issue over in Iraq and turn it into another Goldwater fiasco and he's only known to a few, but I suppose that can change. Daniels seems to be the guy to be the best from a "whole man" concept, but I don't know enough about him yet. Regardless ANY of the names here would be a qunatum leap over the marxist but I am not hopeful

Not a single one of those would make a dent...even with a True Conservative we will also have to take all congress with Super majorities to even have a chance at making a dent

I hate to say it, but Cain has a bit of a problem not coming across as kooky, like Ron Paul. Not saying he IS kooky, just what it will appear to way too many folks & that is a major problem nationally.

Hoping for a surge by a someone like a West, Bauchmann, Rubio, Ryan or similar. It is going to be a bitter fight, tooth and nail against the RINO parade, but it's one we have GOT to win, or just stick a fork in the whole fuggin' mess & wait for the switch to flip to a misery like we have never known..

Ryan would suck as much as the rest, easily.

Bachmann.... sorry, I ain't feeling the love for a former IRS prosecutor. No thanks...

Daniels is RINO, defined.

Haley is also an accountant, and an actual conservative (or damned close to one). Daniels, ain't.

If we are ever gonna turn this country around we need a BUNCH of new CONSERVATIVE blood in government. The same old also ran's ain't gonna cut it.

I've still got my fingers crossed for West and the hope that Beck yanks his chain hard enough that he just can't turn it down.

If he doesn't toss the sombrero in soon, I'm going to be doing a lot more reloading.

None of the beltway crowd will do us any good.
Gonna have to be someone new. Daniels-- maybe

If anyone is looking for the 'perfect' candidate, they'll be looking forever. No one is going to please everyone's criteria. You look for the person who satisfies the bulk of your beliefs, and support them.
Is Bachmann's IRS history any more damaging than Cain's tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City?

Of all the possibles so far, Bachmann is the strongest IMHO. She has raised more campaign funds than anyone in congressional history, is dedicated to the Tea Party and its philosophy, and is tenacious in a debate. She's raised 5 of her own, plus 23 foster children, and doesn't have the baggage Palin has. She's the only one that scares Pelosi enough that she rode her broom to Minnesota to campaign against her.

It's still too early to has any of this out, but I'm guessing she will be one of the front-runners come Aug-Sep. She was born in Iowa, and they love her there. If Palin doesn't run, I'll bet she stands with Bachmann, as the two have become quite good friends.

Wished I could youtube Dennis Miller's comments from last night's O' Rile me.

I think Daniels will be the dark horse and his running mate would be crucial.

What baggage does Palin have?

That isn�t just ginned up crap from the LSM.

What real baggage; as in what others have done to foul their own nest?

What divorces, infidelities, corruption, dishonesty, ect. have you found in the Palin record?

How many earmarks for the Minnesota home folks and how much farm subsidies collected for the Bachmann family farm in the Bachmann record?

As of 5-19-11
2012 Iowa Caucus Straw Poll � Ends 6-15-11
Who will win the 2012 Republican Iowa Caucuses?
Sarah Palin (46%, 771 Votes)
Ron Paul (39%, 647 Votes)
Hermain Cain (7%, 118 Votes)
Michele Bachmann (2%, 37 Votes)
Newt Gingrich (2%, 29 Votes)
Gary Johnson (1%, 23 Votes)
Mitt Romney (1%, 22 Votes)
Tim Pawlenty (1%, 20 Votes)
Rick Santorum (1%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,675

1. Quitter
2. Bridge to Nowhere

I suspect Daniels will be all lined up with one, or close to it, if he declares.

As for him being a RINO, I don't see it.

When you start with the proposition that anyone who actually WANTS the job of POTUS has to be mentally ill at some level as a starting point ...

You have to accept that he's going to be someone you prolly wouldn't want to invite home for supper.

I never said I didn't like Palin. I actually like her quite a bit. I don't think that any of the things the media says about her are fair or completely accurate.

The big problem with Sarah is the damage already done by the media. There is 10% of the voting populous that will decide 2012. I don't think there is any chance of winning them over to be Palin lovers now or in the coming 17 months.
She would be best doing exactly what she is doing right now.

As I stated before, finding a person with no baggage and viewpoints that are 100% aligned is an impossibility. IMHO, people are looking for too much, too soon. That straw poll doesn't mean jackshiit right now, or even in the next month. How many on that list have even announced, or ever will?
I hate polls. They are a totally inaccurate waste of time.

Preach on brother, preach on...

Yup.

Just because she doesn't have the baggage everyone else has doesn't mean she doesn't have her own. The other candidates suck, so why would you hold them up as the standards against which the candidate you support should be compared unless you think she sucks too, and I'm assuming you don't??

The Republican nominee will be Romney. Notice I didn't say "should be" I said "will be".

You can take it to the bank.

1. Quitter

There is no quit in Palin or she would not be still standing after the crap she has had to endure.
More than any other by far.

If you don�t understand why the Governor resigned, the good valid and smart reasons for doing so�that is your problem.

2. Bridge to Nowhere

You mean the one Gov. Palin cancelled the funds for?
She could have done that sooner, maybe better, but it did get cancelled.

During her inaugural address on December 4, 2006, Governor Palin pledged responsible spending.
On January 17, 2007, she sent a revised budget to the president of the Alaska Senate that would restrict capital spending and rescinded the $185M state share of the bridge funding.
In August 2007, Alaska's Department of Transportation stated that it was "leaning" toward alternative ferry options, citing bridge costs and the reluctance of Governor Palin to pay the state's match to the appropriated federal funds.
A month later, in September 2007, Palin formally canceled the project
Palin stated:
�Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it�s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public�s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.�

Condoleeza Rice is what I heard at the State dinner..

If that is the truth this is what you will hear in Nov 2012....Smack... Its a Home Run for the Dems! It Could Go All The Way!


Surely you can do better than that!

Toot---Even with all of Bowsinger's support Perky is not going to be the nominee.

I'm wondering if Romney will hire him after Perky bows out. I'm sure Bows will be looking for a new job.

She only cancled the funds for the Gravina Bridge when the national attention was too much and she and Alaska looked like a Pork State with a Pork Governor . See story: Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

Quote: "We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to theKetchikan Daily News.

Palin only stands for crap if some one is paying her speaking fees.


Please keep in mind that her greatest accomplishment was how well she took on Big Oil and restructured the amount or oil royalties they paid to the state of Alaska....I think you call that a Tax Increase! Yup, she is mavericky!

I've read 2 articles today that say Perry should run.

Best article was here...

Perry is pretty much the poster boy of the african nose-horned beasts. The so called leaders of that ailing herd are being culled so fast, now they're going to throw the kitchen sink at the primaries. ANYTHING to make sure the nominee has a horn on their snout.

Those extremists who dare speak of that pesky old Constitution & have any Tea Party ties MUST be stopped, at any cost. (Ours, of course...)

don't know how you're so sure about Romney Spano, you may well be correct but I don't see how a fella would know at this juncture


but I agree with others if it is him it's a big plus for the Dems

yup... she's no quiter...the "spin'sters" are at work...don young was the one who got the money for the bridge..we got it and it went to the "whole state" palin needs to be in the race to keep the rest on there toes..kinds like a "little trump" hey! she is not "Perky"..spankable yup-perky no....:)

Just remember to PM for my address when he isn't .

George

Works for me!

I'll wrap and package him and send him overnight.

He has the most money and best organization of anyone except BHO and he has been working at it for years.

I'm not sure anyone can beat BHO but I believe he has the best chance. Remember I have not endorsed him or anyone else at this time.

You don't really believe Paul is batshit crazy. You just don't want him because he won't maintain America's world empire. What you don't realize, though, is that your precious empire is going to fall whether Paul's elected or not. Just that if it falls without him being president, it's coming down hard, and we're going down with it. With Paul it will be brought down in an orderly way, so as to actually benefit the United States rather than in a way that will destroy her.

BOWSINGER read this, twice, even. Love how you validate the "QUITTER" part.

You keep him, I just want my bullets .

On a more serious note, I hope I'm "right" for all of us. If Romney does take it, count on the Annointed One for another term .

George

For the "teachers" here and I use the term loosely:

em�pire   /ˈɛmpaɪər; for 8�10 also ɒmˈpɪər/ Show Spelled
[em-pahyuhr; for 8�10 also om-peer] Show IPA

�noun
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, french Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.

No mention of an American Empire.

Whoever wins will be out of power for generation, much like the Republicans were in 1932. Hoover and the Republicans were holding the bag for a Depression, and whomever is elected this time around will be in for the same thing. The best outcome as I see it is to hold the House, which is the source of spending, and possibly gain the Senate, and let the Dems hold the Whitehouse with Ob@m@. The $hitstorm that will be the result of this debt/deficit madness will be of Biblical proportions, best to let the other side take the hits when it comes. I will be very surprised if we still have the right to vote in 2016, or at least the ability to vote for more than one candidate should the Democrats regain the House and hold the Senate and the Executive.

The very best we will get is both houses of Congress.

Earmarks? Minnesota?

Minnesota receives $0.72 from the feds for every dollar paid in - only four states have a worse return.

Paul's either batschit crazy, or stupendously ignorant. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

We need someone who will focus making America strong, fighting terrorism and the improving economy for all Americans, not social programs and legislated morality.

The word is in common usage in reference to the United States vis a vis her foreign policy position, even by your neocon buddies in the Republican Party. Neo-empire, however, if you wish to nitpick.

===============

Good grief,Mike.

When one is trying to have a reasonable discussion, proper terms need to be defined, like for example your favorite NEOCON, and frankly I find it disingenous of you that YOU even recognized it many months back when I took YOUR litmus "Neocon test" that I was far from being one. Back on topic, the US is the anthitesis of empire building. Not nit-picking, just trying to be factual

And, thus far, the GOP doesn't have anyone that will/can actually DO that.

At some point you're going to realize you're being trolled by the 'fire Master of Trolls....The Orifice.

Dittos

Mccain been at it for years also and look where it got him. Mitt was rejected by the Rs last cycle, what makes you think they will embrace him this time around?

I believe I said you were neocon influenced, or something to that effect, rather than neocon proper.

Who's on First?

Cain, Palin, Bachman, Gingrich.... get real not one of them will gain the confidence and vote of middle of the road Americans and it will take the votes of the middle to win this or any other Presidential election. Palin inspires frenzied animosity and sounds like a hick school teacher. Besides what exactly are her qualifications? A couple years as governor of a very small state and she couldn't even go that distance. Bachman? attractive, articulate but a lightweight and certainly not a leader. Newt? come on, he speaks in indecipherable paragraphs, has the charisma of a river rock and the personal history that makes the Tabloids salivate. There is no one looming that appears electable except Romney. Daniels... maybe. At least he has executive experience, Ron Paul- wacko, Rick Perry? not in the race.

I'm...depressed.

Romney is a white Obama.

No thanks.

OK, maybe I'm starting something that I will regret - BUT - is it possible that the Republican party is not really interested in the Presidency, but IS interested in taking the senate and gaining seats in the house? If eight years of Democrats in the white house doesn't cure the American people of their lethargy, we have a more serious poroblem that may not be solved in the voting booth.

So who would you rather have a white Obama or a black Obama?

At the risk of sounding racist I'll take the white boy.

I have not endorsed Romney or anyone else?

Yes, there will be grief, and it won't be good. Better read some political and economic history Bob. This debt/deficit "problem" is orders of magnitude worse than anything this country has ever faced economically, greater even than the 1930's despite the spin being put on it by the government and the Fed. Until and unless it is resolved there will be no recovery, and when it finally does resolve, it will be very bad. I realize that it goes against your worldview and your personal makeup to contemplate that, but it is reality. How do you resolve a $14.3 trillion public debt whose average maturity is four years and has an unfunded portion 6 times that (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) on an economy that has $8.6 trillion in private sector activity? The short answer is that you don't. The resulting dislocations will be tectonic.

I personally believe that it will destroy any political party that has had a hand in its creation, which includes both major parties. I will make this prediction, at a minimum the party holding the Executive at the time of the resolution will be out of power for a very long time, if it can ever return. The Great Depression kept the Republicans out of power for a generation in the Executive and 47 years in the Congress. This event will too. Better to hold the purse strings in the House to try and put a damper on the wild excesses than to be left holding the bag for what is coming.

DRAFT Allen West !

GTC

I will have to take Romney if I can't have Rush Limbaugh.

Neither.

We should be so lucky.

What's left of this nation doesn't deserve him, but it damned sure needs him and those like him.

�greater even than the 1930's�

BS!

I would never trade what we are going though today with the 1930�s.

Last Friday we drove down our local restaurant row and the parking lots were full and our choice had a half hour wait for table.

Didn�t see any soup lines or bread kitchens.

And our debt, AS BAD AS IT IS, was worse in 1946; about 120% of GNP.

We grew out of that as we have many times before and since and we will do it again with the TP House, the TP Senate, and the TP WH in 2013.

Spending cuts that are based on the Ryan plan as a starting point, tax cuts that put people back to work, and jobs, jobs, jobs.

There is a lot of truth in this. This "recovery" appears to be hanging on by the threads, I don't see a lot of economic improvement happening despite all the media cheerleading of Obama's policies. The deficit and national debt are so immense that I don't see any way out of a financial collapse, the tipping point was reached several years ago. The only way out would be to completely eliminate entitlement spending and that's not going to happen, half of the country would just as soon ride the collapse into the stone age as give up their government checks.

I just don't see any way we can get around a financial collapse even if we elect a true fiscal conservative, there's only so much you can do to a sinking ship. It might be better for everyone in the long run if Obama is in office when it happens, that way the democrats get their rightly deserved credit for making it happen.

At any rate, I think it's a moot point. No one in the current crop of republican hopefuls can come close to defeating Obama, it's probably the worst lineup of republicans that I've seen in a generation. The A-team isn't going to come out to play in this election because they don't believe Obama is beatable. The only way Obama will lose is if the bottom just totally drops out of the economy before the election.

You and a whole host of PhD's in economics are thinking the same thing. The side has been ripped out of the unsinkable.
It would be more important at this point to have veto override power than an empty suit in the WH.

"...half of the country would just as soon ride the collapse into the stone age as give up their government checks."

Yep, and half of the rest would rather ride the collapse into the stone age than continue funding those checks.

The game is set; let's play it.

I'm assuming that this was directed at me, not Cross.

Look at a few other factors, like our level of industrial production and employment vs. service and finance employment. Like our reserves, which at the time, when the FRN$ was tied to gold, was 22,000 Tonnes of it, not paper backed by nothing. Like the unfunded mandates such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid and every other giveaway program that has been instituted over the last 70 years and for which we have no way to pay due to demography. Like our ongoing military commitments and its logistical tail such as retirements and VA commitments which runs up a tab of $1.6 trillion every year.

How are we going to create the jobs and in what industries? Since manufacturing and extractive industries are hamstrung by embedded government policies, how are the upper end jobs going to return? Why would they when industry can arbitrage wages overseas?

You don't see soup or breadlines because unlike the '30's, the 45 million citizens who receive "relief" checks in the form of food stamps get it through debit cards or through the mail in the form of .gov checks.

GNP? How about GDP which is the measure of our economic activity. Fully 40% of GDP is .gov related. There is only $8.6 trillion of private sector activity to support all of the public debt which is more like 160% debt/GDP ratio, far exceeding whatever we had in the 40's.

Look at the overall picture, not just a small slice when you do the comparisons and you find that we are on the road to ruin and it will be much worse than the 30's.

Placing your hopes in one man-or woman-as the panacea for all of the country's ills and problems is naive at best, and frightening at worst. The same type of attitude of "strong leader" or dictator to resolve the problems has much historical precedent going back to the Romans through Hitler. I see the same thing happening here if things keep on the way they are, and history provides much data for that outcome.

Mike---Have you ever been bullish on the economy or America? When? Why?

Seems to me you are a "Perma-Bear". I could be wrong.

Next outing to your favorite, local restaurant, spend a few extra minutes after dining and drive by and visit your local St. Vincent DePaul and Salvation Army shelters and soup kitchens and then get back to us, tell us whatcha saw.

Could be those like yourself don't really want to see 'those things' and 'those people'.

Maybe, I just don't remember. I just a plain on Imperialist and an Anglophile in the best Churchillian tradition, but the US is just not that way

can't speak for mike, but I was bullish on America and it's economy circa 1950's


a man making $200 per week could provide pretty well for his family.

but our wants and thus needs grew, divorce became more commonplace, working mothers eventually became the norm and most child rearing was delegated to union school houses. Folks wanted two cars, nicer homes, a boat etc. to have those things required two incomes and inflation didn't help matters any, though it didn't rear it's ugly head really high till we left the gold standard. Most gov't workers didn't make much money, but they had job security.

Hollyweird portrayed most fathers as inept bumbling fools, and gave glory to the smart woman that kept papa outa trouble.

then the 60's hit, Kennedy was shot ( who knows what he would have really done had he lived) and Johnson embarked us on the New Society, War in Vietnam, War against Poverty etc. all of this cost money and it looked like we might have enough to accomplish these things.

and after all weren't they worthy goals? stop Commies in their tracks, get rid of poor folks and thus a lot of crime

then the 70's hit and we got to see a President resign in disgrace, but only after he opened up trading with the Chinese, the effects of removing currency from the gold standard, and what ineptness could come from gutting the military and making an all volunteer army, with far too many of it's members volunteering for it over jail time, and the rise of power of OPEC

then the 80's where we really did strike a blow against communism, by bankrupting them. If we'd started to put or financial affairs in order then, I believe we could have avoided the mess we find ourselves in now.

but we took the opposite tack, we continued to spend $$ we didn't have. Hey most everybody enjoys a free lunch.

the pain of the 90's was more than we were willing to bear. "it's the economy stupid are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

for too many, no was the answer, so our answer was to turn on the printing presses create liquidity as we entered the age of information processing.

It was heady times, unemployment was so low that we got down to just about the unemployable that were the only ones not working, we had a budget surplus thanks to all the record profits of companies expanding this new technology, loans were easy to come by, new malls were being financed to give folks employed more places to spend their money on Chinese junk etc.

it was a BIG party, everyone was gonna retire millionaires as the stock market zoomed to new heights and EVERYONE was an investor, most of them shrewd at it too, just look at their annual returns if you don't believe me.


but like all parties there's a price to be paid and the bigger the party, the bigger the mess.


new ways to produce "income" were dreamt up by college boys that produced record profits for banks and insurance companies at least temporarily and those same guys would have laughed in your face if you expected them to work for 100K per annum, chump change.

during that time, someone mentioned "irrational exuberance" but after the effect of that speech were felt, he soon turned his tune back around to "Happy days are here again"

ime the 90's were our roaring 20's, we were drunk on our success, our excess and just how much smarter we were than the generations before us.


hey the prez is gettin his crank greased by an intern, and he lied to us about it, well unless your definition of what is is can be altered. but hey you see the return on my 401K? I'm a smart SOB, I'm gonna be rich!

the average gov't worker is now the gold standard for employment when factoring in salary and benefits.

now we have the war on terroism, some of those profit makin dreams thought up by the college boys turned into nightmares.

so the average joe taxpayer has to save the mega rich, makes perfect sense to me, whaddya mean it doesn't make sense to you?


hey at least the gov't says we have no inflation, look how much gas and groceries you can buy for $100, let the good times roll!


I hope mike is wrong, but I fear he is not.

Allen West is a good man imo. But I don't think he can turn this thing around.

it took a long time to put the richest country on the planet on the verge of bankruptancy.

even if Wall St. has been saved, who's gonna save CA, IL, WI, NY etc. ?

you got a job or retirement savings? I'd say it's gonna have to be you.


how many new gadgets you gonna go to the mall and buy when your taxes go up and now you find your tax free investments are gonna have to be taxed at a rate higher than you ever dreamed of?

and then there's the inflation tax, as your dollar is worth less, how does that cut into your gadget buying? what's that do to the economy?

perhaps the ilk of those that got us in this mess, mainly the gov't and it's citizens that have become apathetic, lazy and spoiled will see the light, we'll reverse course, patch the boat and sail high and mighty upon the world seas again.


but right now that doesn't seem very realistic to from my view.


it may be time for the clean up from the rah-rah 90's


if so it's gonna be a hell of a mess

Dead center. Well said.

Yes it was in reply to you and I am still in disagreement with some (just some, not all) of your analysis.

You bring up new factors that did not apply to the Great Depression but ignore factors that made those bad times worse than our present bad times.

It does not take much of a lookup to find that during the GD:

Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and 33% in Germany and that did pave the path for Hitler.
We went into WWII at 15%
And it was that GROWTH that finally killed the GD.

9,000 US banks failed during the 1930s.
And it doesn�t take much of a lookup to determine that the economists/historians spilt into two camps.

The 1929 Recession turned into the Great Depression because we stayed on the Gold Standard too long.
OR.
The 1929 Recession turned into the Great Depression because we got off the Gold Standard.

I have no time for that�it is what it is and what we have to work with today.

Your point about GDP private sector percentage is well taken.
And it brings us back to what I said about growth.

Reduce the gov. related percentage of GDP with Ryan type spending cuts.
And increase the private sector percentage and gov. tax revenue at the same time with putting people back to work. Lots of people.
Zero out the capital gains tax for one example and step back out of the way.

We don�t need a one person panacea for all of the country's problems.
We need more of that Tea Party medicine we got the first taste of this year.
We need a lot more of that; a lot more TP House members, a TP Senate majority and a TP WH.

We need a plan that is a distillation of the best we Conservatives have to offer.
A plan that Moderates will be willing to try��to vote for.

I reject the idea that it can�t be done.
That anything we try is doomed before we try.
Even you Mike, cannot prove a negative�

I submit this as a starting point:

1. Pass a powerful tax cut and regulatory reform package designed to launch a decade of job creation and economic growth;

2. Pass an American energy program that creates jobs here at home. An American energy program would not just create jobs in the energy sector. Lowering the cost of gasoline, heating oil, and electricity would stimulate job creation throughout the economy;

3. Repeal Obamacare before it does permanent damage to our health system and economy;

4. Bring the Federal Reserve under control by insisting on a sound dollar policy and by exposing and investigating the billions in secret deals the Fed used to shift money to giant foreign and American banks;

5. Cut spending decisively to create the fiscal space for a pro-growth economic policy.
As the Congress approaches the debt ceiling debate and other future confrontations with the Obama Administration, it must make sure job creation is the number one focus.
America only works when Americans are working. That is the heart of our current crisis.

This happens to be Newt�s American Solutions plan; lots of good minds have put a lot of effort and thought into it: anyone got a better one?

What do you think the real rate of unemployment is today? Do you REALLY believe that the U3 number that the BLS puts out with their statistical mummery is accurate? Birth/death modeling, seasonal adjustments and revisions that look back 3 months? The U-6 number that they put out is the more accurate number and its just under 17%. It's not that accurate either because when a persons benefits run out, they are no longer counted as unemployed. If you add those in the real rate is 23%, damn close to the 25% rate that we had during the Depression.

Yes it was growth that killed the Depression, the growth of a world war. Easy enough to get the economy going again when you draft the 25% unemployed into the military and voila unemployment next to zero. Using your manufacturing base to make war materials and restricting citizens from basic commodities that are used to run the war machine keeps those that aren't in the military working, and it also builds up latent demand for goods when the war finally ends. That's what ended the Depression, it had zero to do with the New Deal.



Yes they did, and they should have as they were insolvent. The reason that we don't have the same rate of bank failure is twofold, one, the FASB has suspended rule 157 which would force the banks to value their assets at current market values, and two, TARP and the fact that the banks are allowed to borrow at the Fed discount window for next to nothing and then turn around and buy Treasury securities or other higher yielding assets with the money.



The gold standard had diddly to do with lengthening the Depression. It restricted FDR from expanding the money supply to implement his government spending initiatives which DID lengthen the Depression by taking money from the private sector and redirecting it to government make work programs. He did a PEO to outlaw private ownership and have the citizens turn in their lawful money at $20.42/oz upon pain of fine and imprisonment, and then he turned around an devalued the dollar by arbitrarily setting the new exchange at $35/oz, but only for governments. It was then called a gold exchange standard. It was somewhat successful until the government ran up its bills during the 1960's with Vietnam and The Great Society. Then Nixon ended it and we got the wonderful inflation that we have suffered since the '70's.



All of that is well and good, but it doesn't cut the cancer out of the problem-ending the Fed, nor does it address the debt. Service on the debt will be so large that it will eat everything that we get in revenues. Government activity needs to be cut 40% across the board to bring the debt and budget into balance and their is no way ANY politician is going to do that voluntarily. All the plans that these "great minds" have come up with do is kick the can down the road a few more years. The debts have to be resolved, and the budget has to balance. It will be done for us if we don't do it ourselves, and so far there hasn't been anyone who has said that entitlements and the military will be cut by that amount. It has to be done, but it will not be voluntarily. That's why I maintain that the party that is in power when the resolution occurs will be out of power for a very long time.

Legit and Toot---I lived through all of that and when I was making $200.00 a week I bought a house for my family on that salary. Nothing fancy just a two bedroom, one bath on a slab, in San Mateo Ca. I paid $22,000 for it and we scrimped to make the $110.00 payment every month. I can remember that back then (and ever more) people saying there were no jobs, no opportunities, inflation was rampant, the economy was going to crash.

I refused to believe it, and over the years, by dint of hard work and conservative, diversified investing, I find I have a plethora of worthless fiat FRNs that now I must rid myself of before they become more worthless. Whatever shall I do?

Rather than sequester them in cold hard metals, I shall spend them in ways that please The Wife and me. Well perhaps, maybe a few I'll sequester in cold hard metals with pointy ends that sling cold hot projectiles forward.

What's wrong with that? Where Have I gone wrong?

Could be You are full of it.

We have 3 new restaurants building in our area.

In the 1930�s restaurants were closing in my home town.

What I �see� are 47 million people on food stamps and that many of them depend on food drives like the ones I and my family help out on.

I maybe know more than just a little about the Salvation Army. And Scout Food Drives.

And NOBODY today has to suffer like they did in the Great Depression.

I was lucky, lived on a farm and my dad had skills that found him work, so Mom and us kids did not have to walk the tracks picking up lumps of coal for fuel.
But I had friends that did just that.

My Great Uncle managed a county poor farm in Illinois until they closed it in the early �50s due to lack of need for that kind of care anymore.
My Granddad kept a farm implement business going during those years and the following war years when you couldn�t get implements.

My dad rode the rails at the very beginning of the Depression. Got a CCC job and met my mom.
Don�t see much of that, these days.

Bows---You are right on. The number of doom and gloomsayers around here is legend. I just hope there aren't many young guys hunkering around the edges listening to the doomsdayboys.

My Old Man was a child of the depression. He never even had a chance at a college education, yet he rose to an executive position with a large and evil corporation. He used to say, "I have a degree from the school of Hard Knocks" And I can tell you he graduated with honors, too bad he was killed in an accident at age 56.

�nor does it address the debt�

You must read too fast.

Three of the five points directly address cutting spending and the debt.


3. Repeal Obamacare before it does permanent damage to our health system and economy;

4. Bring the Federal Reserve under control by insisting on a sound dollar policy and by exposing and investigating the billions in secret deals the Fed used to shift money to giant foreign and American banks;

5. Cut spending decisively to create the fiscal space for a pro-growth economic policy.

You forgot number 3---dumber than a box of rocks.

What an incredibly igorant statement.

You forgot number 3---dumber than a box of rocks.


What an incredibly ignorant statement.

Meanwhile�back to the GOP "hopefuls"?

Michele Bachmann told Fox News in an interview that she was going to move up the date of her announcement but now has abruptly reversed her decision. She stated tonight that she would again push back the date of her announcement to June.

Tim Pawlenty will reportedly make it official that he�s running for the presidency on Monday in Iowa.

As of 5/20/11
2012 Iowa Caucus Straw Poll � Ends 6-15-11
Who will win the 2012 Republican Iowa Caucuses?
Sarah Palin (45%, 786 Votes)
Ron Paul (37%, 650 Votes)
Hermain Cain (7%, 119 Votes)
Michele Bachmann (3%, 55 Votes)
Tim Pawlenty (2%, 40 Votes)
Mitt Romney (2%, 37 Votes)
Gary Johnson (2%, 31 Votes)
Newt Gingrich (2%, 30 Votes)
Rick Santorum (0%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,759

I do read fast, but unfortunately, none of those things will resolve the debt, nor balance the budget.

Ob@m@care is going to happen because the Republicans in the House are too afraid of violating their "rules" in order to defund it. That was made patently clear earlier in the year when they had their vote to repeal it, but refused to actually rescind the funds that the previous Congress had allocated for it. If they are unsuccessful when they have a mandate in the first weeks of their new Congress, what makes you believe that they will follow through and refuse to do so during an election year?

"Reigning in" the Federal Reserve. That's a joke. They don't even have the guts to do a full audit of the Fed and its supposed reserves in Ft. Knox and the FRBNY. They know that if they did they would find that the banksters in charge of the Fed have looted the Treasury for the benefit of their shareholders. Removing the Fed's charter would be the proper way to do it, but that won't happen either because the political class gets their power from the central bankers backing their spending. It's a symbiotic relationship that eventually kills the host.

Cutting spending is a great buzz phrase, but the politicians including Mr. Ryan are NOT talking of the 40% cuts that need to be made to balance the budget. Why? Because that would mean cutting entitlements such as SS. Medicare, Medicaid, and discretionary spending such as the military. Hell, they can't even cut the $100 billion that they promised to in the campaign. The best that they could do in ACTUAL spending cuts was $332 million-a rounding error.

All the great thinkers out there with their plans are trying to maintain the status quo for another few election cycles. Until they get the fiscal house in order and start to make actual resolutions of the outstanding PRINCIPAL on the debt, they are not serious about the problem. The bond and/or currency markets will resolve it, one way or the other, and it will not be a pretty picture.

If you want an example in microcosm, look to Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. They will likely be the catalyst in the next phase of the sovereign debt crisis, and when that trigger is pulled, I fully expect it to have the same affect as the CreditAnstalt Bank in Vienna had on central Europe in 1931. There it was generally isolated to Austria and Germany, but it set up the rise of the fascists to power. If a sovereign debtor such as Greece defaults, it will bring a crisis of confidence in ALL sovereign debtors, and those with the worst balance sheets-like the USA-and their associated financial systems will be in dire straits. ALL of the banks are interconnected and have exposure to too much debt of questionable quality. That will lead to a resolution, and it will not be pleasant.

If you're actually interested on how this will likely play out, and how it has in the past, pick up a copy of "This Time It's Different" by Reinhardt and Rogoff. It will open your eyes as to how big a $hitstorm we're facing.

Mike---Have you ever been bullish on the economy or America? When? Why?

Seems to me you are a "Perma-Bear". I could be wrong.

So when is the world going to end? Tomorrow with the Rapture?
_________________________

Spano there's nada wrong with how you've done things or are doing things now.


no one is imploring you or any youngsters out there to hunker down and buy gold or any other PMs.

like .270 vs. 30-06, CFB, who's the best looking older celebrity we all have an opinion about things. And it's what we do is discuss our opinions and how they've been formed.

mike, myself and a very few others around here, believe we're seeing the signs of significant financial turmoil comparative, but not exactly as that of the late 20's and thru the 30's,

others like you and my friend Bob say we're worried about nada, we're chicken littles or doom and gloomers. But I don't see how a guy is a doomer if he's taking steps to prepare for a possible financial calamity. I buy fire insurance on my house every year, I know, I'm a freakin pessimist (according to some folks thinking evidently), my house might burn down. I say if the house burns down, I've taken steps necessary to rebuild my life. If the dollar burns down, I've done the same, nothing more, nothing less.

i'd be willing to wager, that along with buying some pm's as mike and I have both espoused that we've done, we've also taken some other steps to ensure the best possible outcome for our families in either a natural or man made disaster. you might could win some money from me on this one, I know i have, but don't know if mike's preparations include other means of self reliance similar to the ones I've made. but i'd wager he has if you're interested.



you may be correct or you may be wrong. Only time will tell.


reading info, & analyzing it leads many of us to different conclusions. on what caliber to use or how to best prepare for the coming years ahead.

perhaps it's because I'm aligned more closely to mike's interpretation of what "might" happen in the near future than yours or Bob's.....but I don't pick up on the denigrating tone or delivery from our camp as I do from yours.

certainly Bob with his generous nature always ends these discussions with "i wish everyone well with their preparations"
and i believe he means that very thing.


you both are smart guys and probably have incomes that would shame mine and maybe mike's too (I don't know)

but as I've stated before, I've got my KMA $$, I'm just using it to prepare for a financial storm that looks more probable than at any time in my adult life.

as i also create a more self reliant lifestyle that gives me a sense of accomplishment and freedom from worry.

you're spending your worthless fiat $$$ on things you and the wife enjoy


mike and I are doing pretty much the same thing, it's just a few of the things we spend money on are different than yours.

i don't see where the beef is?

He is interesting. Seems set on waiting fore more years yet is out bitch slapping the muslim in chief at every turn.

This could all be over if he would step to the plate.

He would not only get my vote I would donate to his campaign and being a Scot who grew up in a Jewish community getting money out of me id more than just hard.

Mike is one of the best guys on here. So do you believe that him making money on gold is a bad thing? From some of your previous posts...making profit is not a bad thing...right?

Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just a "thing". May we all profit from our investments.

Now I must prepare for the Rapture which will be arriving shortly. See you on the other side.

Remember that before you can turn around and go the other way. You have to slow down and stop. miles

Thanks for the kind words Randy and TBaker. You're correct in your assumption that I'm doing much more than buying PM's to insure my future-and no, I don't live in a bunker or a compound.


Spanky,

To answer your question, which it seems that I've done before, yes, at one time I was bullish on the markets and the future of America, but that began in 1981 and ended in 1991 when Bush the Elder took over and announced the "New World Order" with the UN as the keeper of the flame of Liberty. I was unhappy that Reagan didn't do more to reign in the spending done by Congress, or to reinstitute the gold standard as he had promised to do, but political reality in the Congress and his advisors prevented both.

This bearishness as you call it, has accelerated since, right along with the acceleration of the money supply and Federal Reserve's interventions in the economy, and the decrease in liberty which the country has endured in the name of "security". Since 1989 our Presidents have come from one of two places, Harvard or Yale, and that has brought all of the socialist engineering taught in those institutions into the fabric of our society introduced by leaders who are not willing to leave well enough alone but who think that they have a better idea.

It's very hard to be bullish on the future of the country either politically or economically when over the years I have observed and continue to observe an increasingly intrusive Federal government aided by the Federal Reserve debase both our liberties and our economy. This intervention is coming to a head, and they-meaning the government and the Fed-have placed the country in an untenable situation.

As I've stated many times before, there are but two ways out of this box, neither of which are pleasant, and both of which have much historical precedent for occurring regardless of whether you think that they are impossibilities. You choose to place your faith in the people and institutions that have created this problem, and I do not. All I'm trying to do is protect myself from what I see coming, and spreading the word so that maybe others will try and become more self reliant and able to protect themselves too.

Does that make me a "perma bear"? Maybe so, but I at least want a fighting chance to come through this with my liberty and wealth intact, and very few options remain to be able to do that.

Mikey---I guess we just have differing world views and must respectfully agree to disagree.

One thing we do agree upon is that a decline began with the election of Bush 1.

Spano, there's no doubt by the fruits of your tree that you are indeed a sharp guy. You've done well and most times that doesn't happen without a guy having a somewhat accurate view of the world around him.


I read and analyze and even listen and certainly like anyone else I'm predisposed to embrace data that suggests I'm really correct in choosing a 30-06 over .270 but I like to think of myself as open minded and willing to learn, even though I can be a hard headed stubborn SOB.

I'd be really interested if you're so inclined to hear your world view, how all of this plays out over the next several years.


Some of the questions I'd have concerning your view would be


how does the US and thus the US$ reverse the trend we've seen?


in your view will the US$ regain some of it's lost ground and remain the world's reserve currency?

I still believe in investing in other things besides pm's mind you, Bob's pick of Tata got my attention as I've long had a stake in TTM as one example. I think more of the world will end up driving and they seem poised to offer a solution to lots of folks wanting a vehicle.

I also believe one of the factors of US aid is often health related, as knowledge of sanitation and medication and medical procedure are spread around the globe, mortality rates go down and life expectancy goes up. All of those folks now still with us got to eat, so I see investing in good food companies, fertilizer companies etc. as being good investments.

but I do see the US economy on perilous ground, the states I mentioned have serious fiscal imbalances and will eventually have to be dealt with imo.

but hey I already know what I know

what I'd like if you'd allow is what you know and why your world view is so different than the conclusions mike has made?

How do you see things playing out?

Difficult questions.

I don't know how we can reverse our present debt crisis. If I did I'd be running for president. That being said I we have been in worse crises before and weathered them.

I don't see the value of the dollar as anything of great importance. The dollar has fluctuated over the years and will continue to do so. Remember a weak dollar means more exports and more US jobs. To hedge I've placed some money in offshore no load funds.

I believe the dollar will remain as the WRC for at least 20-25 years. What other currency could possibly replace it?

You know my investment strategies as I have stated them many times however to summarize:
I believe in using a portfolio of well diversified no-load mutual funds. I rarely invest in single stocks and only own one at present. I don't use financial planners or advisers. I am not a fan of holding PMs although I have owned them in no-load funds. For those who want to I would recommend 5% as reasonable but certainly no more than 10%. I do have a small amount of the physical in the gun safe, much less than 1%.

In short I believe in getting rich slowly and that living rich is better than dieing rich. I am of the age now (70) where The Wife and I have enough so we can do pretty much as we please and not worry about outliving our assets.

Now I shall say a few things that I know will get me shat upon:

1. I don't fear China or any other nation as long as we have free trade, for when goods and dollars freely cross borders tanks and troops don't. To put it bluntly; I am for free and unfettered trade with any nation not actively engaged in hot war with us.

2. I support the Federal Reserve system. No First World nation can survive without a strong central bank. Eliminate the FED and monetary chaos follows posthaste. Can you imagine the Congress handling the money supply? This is not to say that I agree with everything the FED does.

3. China presents opportunity. Yes, they are growing at a prodigious rate but they have a long way to go. What a great market for US Consumer goods. We do business with China and I am proud of it.

4. I am bullish on America and the American economy. My sons are doing very well, much ahead of where I was at their age. I see my four grandkids doing even better even though their parents are spoiling them rotten.

I'll continue later, The Wife is calling dinner.

Being 39, I'm somewhat in the young and impressionable group, and getting precariously farther into the older and wiser group. That said, I'm scared of what I see coming. I love the optimism, here, I also am all about America the Beautiful, but the tea leaves are painting a grim picture that I've only read about in history class.

I'm somewhat established in a weakly bullish industry, but I'm also upside-down in my mortgage, and my investments are somewhat miniscule at this adolescent stage, and would hardly carry me through economic disaster. Did I mention that I'm scared? In short, I'm an incurable optimist (especially about America), but I can't afford to blow off the possibility that the pessimists may be on to something; especially when I look at all the stupid things EVERYONE in government are doing to effect said pessimistic prophecies. I kinda feel like one of the "Matrix" humanoids just existing the way the computer (government) intends for me to exist.

Any advice that would ease my troubled mind would be GREATLY appreciated.

Incurable optimism isn't something I can relate with, since I've always been a factual realist and a cynic.
The only advice I can give you in times like this is to vote wisely, and be as prepared as you can. Even if you don't have the cash to be buying gold, silver is usually reachable for those in a more precarious financial position.

Never forget either to be a Boy Scout. There are things that will shut you down quickly in a bad time if you don't make an attempt at having some of the most basic survival items on hand. Water, food, ammo, a generator (and some treated gas to run it for a while) are all items that anyone should have, regardless of their feelings of invincibility or optimism in society's ability to maintain an even keel.

Well you got that right. I suspect Mitt could match him lie for lie.

As for Cain I only have one reservation about him he doesn't think the Fed should be audited and he was part of the Fed. That causes a very large ? mark.

Spano,

tks for the reply, I look forward to hearing more of your views on these matters. Hope you have a great dinner.


maybe it's just a fakeout move, but it seems other countries are rapidly divesting their surplus account balances of the US$.

unless something happens to change that, I just don't see how the $ retains WRC status.


I remain optimistic myself, some folks did very well in the last very big economic downturn, I hope to do moderately well myself if that happens.

I have two boys, I want them to have a future. It's why I'm making or have made some of the financial moves that seemed prudent to me. Want them to be well educated in industries that have a good future, but realize with the pace of technology they will probably have to re-educate/train 4 times in their lives to keep abreast if they're in a technological field.

with 400 acres at times I'm almost tempted to re-enter farming a bit. but we've a couple of cash cow biz and I intend on milking them until there's no milk forthcoming from them.

one may wither and die fairly soon, but the other I'm anticipating at least another 5-10 years of profitable life out of it.

Yep. I liked him a lot when he filled in for Bortz, but the more I hear from him and about him, the less I'm liking him.

Cap---On being under water on your house; it's not a big deal if you can afford the payments and intend to stay there. If not I would advise you to do everything possible to avoid foreclosure and damage your credit for years. Try to work something out with the lender.

Try to max out any tax priviledged accounts available from your employer. Here are two sites that I highly recommend; <www.vanguard.com> and <www.bobbrinker.com>.

IMO the best way to accumulate wealth over the long haul is with your own business. Keep your eyes open for opportunity.

Get rich slowly with conservative, diversified, investments and above all stay optimistic.---Spano.

Virtually everyone who buys a new car on credit is instantly under water the minute he drives it off the lot. It has always been thus. The only thing being under water on your house implies is that you have the now viable option of walking away and allowing the contract term of foreclosure to take effect, i.e., the bank (as specified in the mortgage) gets ownership of the house, and you are free and clear.

Only as a very last resort would I ever walk away from a financial obligation. You will pay in self respect much more than you will save in money.

And your credit rating will be damaged. At a young age a high credit rating is a very valuable asset.

FWIW , I think Mike has the situation pegged exactly.Were it not for SCOTUS,nominees , the country would be better off letting OBAMA - like a bad fever - run his course.If the "R" folks could get a RELIABLE majority in the Senate to forestall particularly bad judicial nominees , Obama could flounder himself into oblivion and take the liberal Dems with him to the betterment of the country's long term future.

Daniels just said he isn't going to run.
Huckster is out.


Cain's in.
Romney's in.
Gingrich is in, but listing badly and will eventually sink
Trump is in, but doing likewise.
RP is in, but as a punchline.

Ain't much to choose from, but fortunately, Cain is at least a decent option.

Cain is head and shoulders above the rest of that list.

Hard not to be head and shoulders above that list.

As Curdog said, a strong conservative congress is a must no matter who wins.

A conservative Congress?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I needed that laugh today.

Of course if Cain runs against obama we could tell the A cornholers if they didn't vote for both of them they were racists.

Can only hope that Christie will reconsider. A small hope.

I see what I consider as too much emotionalism in Cain, as most blacks tend to be. Just my read.

You just crushed my dream.

Cain doesn't have the money or organization to mount a credible campaign.

Romney has both and will be the nominee. I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.

I will vote for the dark horse, money or not

There is still a lot of water to flow under the bridge before the ballots are printed. Top dog spot can change every day. Only time will tell.

Totally agree.

West, like Cain, doesn't have the money or organization to mount a serious campaign this late in the game.

I have not endorsed any candidate, yet.

Who gives a [bleep] if you "endorse" a candidate, or not?

The PRK will back Hussein; your "endorsement" means less than nothing.

I still have not endorsed any candidate but I have my best people working on it and will name my man "soon". Standby.

Thanks all, for the input. I'm not moving anytime, soon, and my payments are pretty easily made. I just heard a financial planner on the radio say the only thing I have to worry about is if the crap REALLY hits the fan, and I really can't see anything BUT that coming. So that's my major concern.

As far as candidates, I really like Mr. Cain. He really speaks my language, but I'm afraid to get my hopes up.

Gingrich was his old self today... I'm talking about @1994 old self, and it was GREAT! He even said he was plagiarizing Ronald Reagan, and I LOVED IT! Let's just cross our fingers, because a new Ronald Reagan is exactly what this nation needs.

If not, I'll hold my nose and vote for the (R) again, just like McCain.

Much as I hate to see it I think the Newt is beyond repair.

AHHH...was he your favorite?...here is my shocked face...

Laffin..........

Yes he was and is my favorite but I fear it is not to be.

The favoritism comes from Newt being all cozy with Pig-losi and agreeing with Hussien on ObamaCare.

Socialists just love that.

Today I have a meeting with my top advisers. I may be to issue a statement after that meeting. Standby.

In other words, Raul the "pool boy" still has his mouth full and hasn't said which candidate makes his ... tingle... like Hussein did in '08.

I don't have an outdoor pool--too cold here. Maybe you meant my Grounds Keeper, Spike? You may rest assured that my personal staff will not be involved in the endorsement decision.

Please be patient I'm trying to get this right. Standby.

I just took a Republican straw poll, and to my great surprise Herman Cain was in first with more than double his nearest competitor of Ron Paul. The sample group is almost 70,000 which is probably better than any Gallop sample that I know of. from Paul on down, the competition was fairly close between the big names. Newt got the fewest (of the big names).

I also checked the integrity of the poll by trying to take it twice, and couldn't, so I'm pretty satisfied with the validity of the results, but to be fair, it is an American Family Association poll and thus, not just the average "Likely Voters".

If you want to take the poll, paste this in address line (I just can't figure out how to paste links...)

http://www.afa.net/poll/

Cain is Able-Dennis Miller

Bows---How about if Perky picked Herman as her VP?