President Obama plans to make a major jobs/debt speech after Labor Day. According to Huffington Post, progressives are urging the president to "go big." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/barack-obama-jobs-plan-progressives_n_942533.html
I don't think "going big" in his speeches has ever been difficult for Obama. He usually talks a good game. My problem is I no longer have any faith at all in his will and stamina on the playing field. Time and again I have watched him stake out his position with flourish only to begin his retreat the minute the opposing team takes the field.
How about a "little less talk and a lot more action" Mr. President?
Here's what I think...
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Hanging Tough While Wall Street Tumbles
These are the times that try our patience, test our risk tolerance and tempt us to bail. The past two weeks have decimated my retirement plans. Yes, I knew a correction was overdue; that the economy was not recovering for most working folk; that the global outlook was starting to look grim.
Yes, I know economic cycles are cyclical (a little redundancy hurts no one). Yes, I have preached "being in the market for the long term" and "downturns offer buying opportunities," for many years.
Regardless, during these turbulent times, each day's opening bell makes my stomach churn, my heart pound and my fingers edge toward the "sell" button.
Hanging tough while Wall Street tumbles is hard to do.
Yes, I know economic cycles are cyclical (a little redundancy hurts no one). Yes, I have preached "being in the market for the long term" and "downturns offer buying opportunities," for many years.
Regardless, during these turbulent times, each day's opening bell makes my stomach churn, my heart pound and my fingers edge toward the "sell" button.
Hanging tough while Wall Street tumbles is hard to do.
Presidential Vacation
I have made no secret of my discontent with President Obama. But I cannot find it in my heart to begrudge him his vacation. The Presidency is not a 9-5 job. It is taxing, demanding, constant in its pressures and crises. Let the man have his family vacation in peace. It will be interrupted soon enough with another crisis he must tend to.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Long Past Time for Medical Marijuana
This one is for Lisa.
She is a young mother of two boys 9 and 4. Her own mother lost a long, valiant fight against cancer two years ago. Just months ago she underwent a double mastectomy for breast cancer. After three opinions by oncology experts, she decided on the most radical treatment - chemo-therapy - for one reason. She wanted to see her boys grow to adulthood. She accepted the risks, and they are sobering, because the most important thing in her life is those two boys. She has lost her beautiful blond hair. She works her 9 to 5 job through the side effects of her treatment. And, because she is law-abiding, because she represents in her stubborn, courageous frame the very best that is American, she will not seek ease from marijuana, which is illegal in any form in the state in which she lives.
The Obama Justice Department has been harsh in its enforcement of the federal drug laws against marijuana use. If this beautiful human being lived in California or a handful of other states, she might have access to the drug. In this state? It simply is not an option. So she perseveres. And perhaps Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, or some other big pharma company can provide some weak substitute for her discomfort. But why should she be deprived of this simple, readily available drug that is PROVEN to be a major aid to those undergoing chemotherapy? What conceivable benefit is there to denying her and those like her the ease granted by this simple remedy?
The time is long past when marijuana should be legalized in this country.
Note: I have managed to achieve 6+ decades without using marijuana. I say this only to point out I do not have a dog in this fight.
She is a young mother of two boys 9 and 4. Her own mother lost a long, valiant fight against cancer two years ago. Just months ago she underwent a double mastectomy for breast cancer. After three opinions by oncology experts, she decided on the most radical treatment - chemo-therapy - for one reason. She wanted to see her boys grow to adulthood. She accepted the risks, and they are sobering, because the most important thing in her life is those two boys. She has lost her beautiful blond hair. She works her 9 to 5 job through the side effects of her treatment. And, because she is law-abiding, because she represents in her stubborn, courageous frame the very best that is American, she will not seek ease from marijuana, which is illegal in any form in the state in which she lives.
The Obama Justice Department has been harsh in its enforcement of the federal drug laws against marijuana use. If this beautiful human being lived in California or a handful of other states, she might have access to the drug. In this state? It simply is not an option. So she perseveres. And perhaps Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, or some other big pharma company can provide some weak substitute for her discomfort. But why should she be deprived of this simple, readily available drug that is PROVEN to be a major aid to those undergoing chemotherapy? What conceivable benefit is there to denying her and those like her the ease granted by this simple remedy?
The time is long past when marijuana should be legalized in this country.
Note: I have managed to achieve 6+ decades without using marijuana. I say this only to point out I do not have a dog in this fight.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Support Obama in 2012? Maybe. Maybe Not.
The 2012 Obama for President campaign is underway. Solicitations for my financial support have started. Understandable, really. After Hillary Clinton withdrew in 2008 and threw her support behind candidate Obama, I donated to his campaign. I wanted a Democrat and my first choice was no longer in the race.
But 3 years of wasted opportunities later, my progressive agenda in shreds, my fiscal responsibility agenda ignored, a primary challenger to the President sounds appealing.
Frankly, Mr. President, I am not feeling the love.
But 3 years of wasted opportunities later, my progressive agenda in shreds, my fiscal responsibility agenda ignored, a primary challenger to the President sounds appealing.
Frankly, Mr. President, I am not feeling the love.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Standard and Poors takes on Warren Buffett
According to NPR:
First: Warren Buffett criticized S&P.
Second: S&P announced it was "reexamining" its AAA rating of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.
Third: One of Berkshire Hathaway's major holdings is S&P's competitor - Moody's.
Busines as usual? Myself, I tend to side with Buffett's amazing investing track record.
First: Warren Buffett criticized S&P.
Second: S&P announced it was "reexamining" its AAA rating of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.
Third: One of Berkshire Hathaway's major holdings is S&P's competitor - Moody's.
Busines as usual? Myself, I tend to side with Buffett's amazing investing track record.
Equities Plunge, Bonds Hang Tough
Pundits proclaim the devastation on Wall Street is rooted in S&P's U.S. debt downgrade. If they are correct, why are equities down and bonds stable or slightly up? Sounds a tad counter-intuitive to me.
A lot of cash was either stockpiled or invested in equities over the past several months as uncertainty grew over whether the U.S. would default on its debt or raise the debt ceiling. Now, a dim economic outlook and the raising of the debt ceiling is luring investors back into the seriously over-bought bond and gold markets. The European situation - developing fiscal crises in Spain, Portugal and Italy threatening to pile on top of the colossal problems of Greece and Ireland - almost guarantees U.S. bonds will hold steady or rise (higher prices = lower interest rates).
In the meantime, Bank of New York Mellon has decided to charge customers holding what it determines is "excessive" cash in their accounts. Yeah a lot of big players put cash on the sidelines in the build-up to August 2 as a defense against market volatility. I thought banks were supposed to pay depositors for the money they placed in the banks custody. But if banks don't lend that money, some penalties kick in from the Federal Reserve that cost those banks money. BNY Mellon would prefer to pass that cost onto their larger customers rather than actually lend it to serious borrowers. So... holding cash reserves cost money (in addition to the erosion of inflation), incentivizing well-heeled depositors to put their money somewhere. Their choice appears to be bonds or gold.
For myself, I am NOT buying equities yet. I don't want to catch a falling knife. I am staying alert to opportunities - good companies with solid earnings expectations and stable dividends. (At current prices I consider bonds carry a hefty risk of capital erosion.) If only a noisy part of my brain did not suspect the entire scenario is manipulated by the market's big players.
If it really is Armageddon, all the geese are cooked. If not, like Warren Buffett, I will carefully look for buying opportunities and reexamine asset allocations. On the other hand, I am NOT selling any gold jewelry I might have acquired over the past unnamed number of years.
A lot of cash was either stockpiled or invested in equities over the past several months as uncertainty grew over whether the U.S. would default on its debt or raise the debt ceiling. Now, a dim economic outlook and the raising of the debt ceiling is luring investors back into the seriously over-bought bond and gold markets. The European situation - developing fiscal crises in Spain, Portugal and Italy threatening to pile on top of the colossal problems of Greece and Ireland - almost guarantees U.S. bonds will hold steady or rise (higher prices = lower interest rates).
In the meantime, Bank of New York Mellon has decided to charge customers holding what it determines is "excessive" cash in their accounts. Yeah a lot of big players put cash on the sidelines in the build-up to August 2 as a defense against market volatility. I thought banks were supposed to pay depositors for the money they placed in the banks custody. But if banks don't lend that money, some penalties kick in from the Federal Reserve that cost those banks money. BNY Mellon would prefer to pass that cost onto their larger customers rather than actually lend it to serious borrowers. So... holding cash reserves cost money (in addition to the erosion of inflation), incentivizing well-heeled depositors to put their money somewhere. Their choice appears to be bonds or gold.
For myself, I am NOT buying equities yet. I don't want to catch a falling knife. I am staying alert to opportunities - good companies with solid earnings expectations and stable dividends. (At current prices I consider bonds carry a hefty risk of capital erosion.) If only a noisy part of my brain did not suspect the entire scenario is manipulated by the market's big players.
If it really is Armageddon, all the geese are cooked. If not, like Warren Buffett, I will carefully look for buying opportunities and reexamine asset allocations. On the other hand, I am NOT selling any gold jewelry I might have acquired over the past unnamed number of years.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Recess or Non-Recess?
Let me get this straight. Congress intends to go on recess for a month without funding the FAA - a decision that will cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, leave critical workers in the air safety community unpaid and stop ongoing, already budgeted construction programs.
On the other hand, Congress refuses to go on recess for a month preventing President Obama from making any recess appointments to the hundreds of unfilled positions in the federal government that have been tied up in a Senate where one Senator can prevent an appointment from being brought to the floor. Among the many casualties will be the top spot at the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. As a result this Agency might never get off the ground.
What is wrong with this picture? Have Republicans discovered a way you can have your cake and eat it too? In Washington Wonderland? You betcha.
Note: On August 4, 2011 Congress reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the FAA through mid-September. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/04/138996699/congress-declares-faa-truce-faas-partial-shutdown-to-end-for-now
On the other hand, Congress refuses to go on recess for a month preventing President Obama from making any recess appointments to the hundreds of unfilled positions in the federal government that have been tied up in a Senate where one Senator can prevent an appointment from being brought to the floor. Among the many casualties will be the top spot at the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. As a result this Agency might never get off the ground.
What is wrong with this picture? Have Republicans discovered a way you can have your cake and eat it too? In Washington Wonderland? You betcha.
Note: On August 4, 2011 Congress reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the FAA through mid-September. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/04/138996699/congress-declares-faa-truce-faas-partial-shutdown-to-end-for-now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
