Magox

I was having this conversation with my father shortly after the Bills mismanaged the last 4 minutes of yesterdays game. I told my father that this administration is the most politically motivated administration I have seen in my adult life and that I wouldn't put it past them to convince Hillary to get on the ticket once they realize that Romney and Rubio are pulling away from them in the polls. I believe it has at least a 30% chance of happening.

I disagree completely. You play the odds, you have first down at the 25 with 4 minutes left to play and they have two times out left. We've been running the ball effectively throughout most of the game, and you play for a first down. If the Bills get a first down in three plays, and we kick a field goal, at best they get he ball back around their 20 with about a minute left with no timouts. If we don't get the first down and kick a field goal, they get it back with about 2 minutes left and a couple time outs,and now the onus is on them to drive and score points. Even if we score,they would of had 4 minutes left to tie the game. Im not one to typically second guess, but we definitely had the wrong strategy at the end of the game.

IF, and that's a big if, If he were to know someone connected to the "inner-circle" of the W.H, then one thought comes to mind; "Never let them see you sweat". I mean, anyone with the capacity to think rationally knows that the Obama administration is most worried about a Mitt matchup. And if Mitt wins the nomination and chooses Rubio and RUbio accepts, "Turn out the light, the party is over"

I knew you'd chime in on this topic

Do you have a link to these exemptions? I would be interested in reading them if you.

Because disposable incomes matter much more as incomes go down. I could go into a long explanation as to why regressiveness matters and how it would impact our economy negatively, but frankly I just don't have it in me today to do so. So the initial statement that I made in this post pretty much says it all. And no, it doesn't complicate it that much at all. I don't see how one could use food, gasoline or their utility bill as a massive tax shelter to avoid taxes. Also, on a sidenote, when you see that his plan gets savaged over the next couple weeks, you'll see what I mean, even though you still won't agree with me. Good point, using the word "fair" sounds like a play straight out of the liberal playbook.

Actually, it's the other way around, try to keep up skippy.

I believe the "establishment" badge of shame branding matters more to partisans than independents. The economy is so bad right now, and many independents feel let down by this president, that from my perspective they are desperate for someone who could get this economy going. When you contrast the two, you have on one hand an eloquent speaker who has virtually no experience in how the economy works and on the other someone who has a proven track record in the private sector, I'm pretty damn sure you'll see Romney win over many more independent votes than Obama. My guess is that he'll win the independents by at least 5% and possibly over 10%.

We're still talking about your boyfriend Barney right?

I've been thinking about this plan a little more and I have added in a few things that would make it a bit more palpable. Income tax rate= Instead of taxing 9% to everyone, have it broken off to four subsections 3% for low income 7% for middle 10% upper income earners 13% for the wealthy National Sales tax Essentials such as food (grocery food, not dining),rentals, medicine etc should be excluded Gasoline and utilities 4% Corporate taxes stay at 9% Something likethis would make his plan less regressive, and would at least have some sort of a progressive tax rate on incomes, which would give it a much better shot of getting bipartisan support. Also the exclusions and deductions in the National Sales tax would be offset with the increases from the upper income and wealthy income taxes.

I don't give a **** what Juror says, they are definitely very concerned of a Romney matchup. You'd have to be a complete idiot not to be. They know that Independents have left his side for more than two years now, and they have't been able to bring them back, and that is a major concern for them. They were hoping that they would get a matchup againt Rick Perry, where they knew they would stand a much better shot at winning against in the swing states, where the independents decide who win. Now that Mitt is in the lead, you can see guys like Axelrod "incensed" and "disgusted" that Romney is coming out of these debates unscathed. Just use your common sense, it isn't that difficult to figure out, Winner of Independents = Our Next President You think Independents in Ohio or Florida are gonna vote for Obama again, over a candidate like Romney?

You could be given four legs and you still wouldn't be able to make a stand.

Excuse me for saying this, but every time I read one of your posts I can't help but think of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyLwXhqlWU

Yes, and there is no place for you here.

(Park official) "Ok guys, you have to leave the park so we can clean it up a little, but then you can come back afterwards", (Protester) "You want to clean it? Hell no,"

Oh Please, You're just jealous You aren't in the middle of this cluster!@#$

So I see you are taking the "Na Na Ni boo boo, I can't hear you" approach.

I agree Chef, I'm just a vetting mother!@#$er!

Not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. Also, what about the regressiveness of the proposal? It's unacceptable, UNLESS they excluded essential items, such as food, clothing, rentals, etc. If he included these exclusions and a few others I could be for a national sales tax. But, opening up a new revenue stream for the government could be a slippery slope.

Boogie Man Alert!!

Like I said, you can keep saying that they aren't worried about Mitt until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that they are. And if you think I'm abrasive, then you haven't... oh NM And you can't count on your hand the amount of name calling that you believe I have committed? What, were you in some sort of injury where you lost most of your fingers? let's play your game for a second. ill-informed: lacking adequate or proper knowledge or information, as in one particular subject or in a variety of subjects: That's not name calling that is an accurate description or characterization of your knowledge of the oil markets. And when I said your political awareness is sorely lacking. again, not name calling, but a fair observation IF you believed that Obama would not lose independents against a moderate candidate. When I said "you have no clue in how the oil markets works", is that name calling? Nope. Now on to the oil markets: You see, when you say stuff like this, it once again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of how markets work. You seem to believe that the more speculators there are in a market, the higher the prices, or at least that's what you are inferring, because after all we are speaking about your belief that speculators are directly attributed to today's higher prices. Now try to wrap your head around this, you see, speculators take both sides of the markets, they go short and they go long based on MARKET FUNDAMENTALS. Sometimes, when markets are overly bearish, prices tend to overshoot to the downside, and the same goes for the upside. In regards to why did the price of oil shoot to the up over $25 in a day? Well, since I was in the markets and I remember that day very clearly its quite simple. But before I get to that day, the demand for Oil coming from China was exploding, you may remember that was the year of the Chinese Olympics, and China was buying so much oil that year in the run-up to their monumental event, that there were shortages of oil tankers and oil was INDEED in short supply, oil demand for a 2 month time period was in deficit by close to 2M barrels a day. The numbers you cite are skewed because the 4thQ demand of oil 2007 was higher than the 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 for one simple reason. Hmmm, lets try to figure out what that reason could be. I know you can do it. Think back. Oh yeah! That's right, The financial meltdown. So lets take a look at the time periods and prices to see if those prices were justified based on Demand. Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2007 was higher than in 2008, that is true and the price was $95 a barrel Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 was lower than in 2007 and the price was $42 a barrel Wow! How could demand in 4thQ of 2007 be higher than the demand of oil in the 4thQ of 2008 AND the prices were higher?? that isn't justified. Wait, What?? So again, you were trying to make the point that prices were too high based on demand being higher in 2007 than in 2008.. Yet the price of oil wasn't even 50% of the price of 2007. Thanks for making my point though, which is that sometimes when extreme bearishness sets in, prices overshoot to the downside as well. But seriously, I'm glad you brought up that stat Oh and the $25 price movement in a single day. Well for an ill-informed observer such as yourself, it is quite reasonable to question how we could possibly see a day like that one. Once again, the answer is quite simple. You see, when you have extreme bearishness setting in, a lot of SPECULATORS begin to place their bearish bets. The price of oil was beginning to come down hard... so when you have "news" that is seen as potentially bullish, all those SPECULATORS cover their shorts, and you have a massive short covering rally, and of course you get some SPECULATORS that look to try to take advantage of that very very short-term movement. Hence the explosive 1 day movement. You see we call these things "Corrections". Get it? Correction. Meaning, correcting itself to a more fundamentally accepted price. Amazing how those things work. You haven't been here long enough to know that I have made some of these explanations before. I used the word "trajectory" for a reason. Short-term price movements are exactly that, short-term. So where do you believe the price of oil was after September 21st 2008, one week later? 2 weeks later? 3 weeks later? I have it right here for you http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm September 26, 2008 $106.89 October 3, 2008 $93.88 October 10, 2008 $77.70 Did you know, that the one day anomaly of that price spike never affected prices at the pump? Yep it didn't. Also, it appears that prices weren't justified. After the Chinese olympics, Demand declined sharply, because the Chinese dramatically cut off their purchases of oil, prices began to decline, the world was slowing down due to the financial crisis and subsequently prices of oil did as well. Another point about the Chinese, I remember, because I was trading oil at the time, the Chinese were bidding for oil from suppliers that we normally purchased from, and there were shipments that were diverted from our destination over to China because of their insatiable appetite for oil they had leading into the Olympics. You believe this could of had an impact on prices? But, keep looking for the boogie men, because well, that's what you like to do. Oh and btw, just so we don't waste each others time any further, I was against the Repeal of GS. I am for sensible regulations, not punitive populist pieces of legislation meant to excite the base. I believe that all the Bush tax cuts should be repealed once the economy heals. I don't believe that austerity should happen now during this weak economy. I do believe that government does play a role in Safety Nets and Health care, just not what is being proposed or passed by today's lawmakers.

hmmm, oddly enough this is the point that I have been making. Weird "Incensed" and "disgusted", yep, sounds like the characteristics of a man who isn't worried. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65827_Page2.html#ixzz1afa7JCO6

Oddly enough, my guess is that a weather event will be the end of OWS in NY.

I didn't cal you extreme, I said far right. I would have to say that is a fair characterization. Why? Anyone who believes Mitt Romney is a liberal, which means leans pretty damn far to the left, would have to be someone who is pretty damn far to the right. Romney believes in lower taxes, less regulation and is a fervent believer of capitalism and the free markets. Sorry, but I don't know of a single liberal that shares all those same values. In regards to undoing ObamaCare, that fate will be decided on election day. If the GOP has control of the House and Senate then he will repeal it, if they don't, then it won't get done. It's as simple as that. In regards to Romneycare hurting his chances in the general elections?? Not a chance, independents aren't nearly as passionate about undoing Obamacare as Conservatives are. Sure, for the most part they believe it is a bad piece of legislation but it won't be a major election issue. It matters much more in the primares than it will there. Dante, youhave to realize, OBama has lost the independents, the only shot that Obama has at regaining them is if the GOP puts a polarizing goofball or "not ready for primetime" candidate. Against Mitt, he loses. In regards to Cain, I like him, and I believe he has a shot, but an outside shot at defeating Obama. He's gaffe prone, not experienced (haven't we aready seen what a president who lacks experience can do?) and honestly doesn'thave command of the substantive issues. I mean don't get me wrong, I believe he's charasmatic and he seems to be a take charge kinda guy, but I just don't see him being ready for the job. ALso lets not forget that Romney was a very successful businessman from the private sector.

It's not just based on Polls, the reason why the poll was cited was to back up my claim. Obama lost independents sometime during the health insurance debate, and has never regained them ever since. Even when he's attempted shifting to the middle they still didn't gravitate towards him. He's not getting them back, unless he goes up against a polarizing goof and Mitt doesn't fit that bill. If you believe that Obama can win back the Independents against a moderate candidate then your political awareness is sorely lacking. Say what you want, but they are very worried about a Mitt matchup. In regards to some polls showing Obama leading, that is logical, as I stated before, the GOP hasn't coalesced around any candidate yet, Specially Mitt, but when the primaries are over with they will and those numbers will show an even larger lead for him. Wow! No wonder, you have no clue how the oil markets work. First off, Oil traders pay little attention to Cushing Ok, Oil supplies. As I've told my clients for years, forget about Oil Supplies in Cushing Ok, it isn't indicative of Global supply/demand. What dicticates oil prices more than anything is Demand, Currency fluctuations and supply disruptions. So let's take a look at GLobal supply and demand for oil in 2005/2006 According to the IEA, oil demand in the fourth quarter of the year was at 85.7 M barrels a day vs. 85M barrels a day of supply. When Demand outpaces supply, prices tend to rise. Second, we had this Hurricane that you may have heard about in the Summer of 2005, named Katrina, where close to a million barrels a day were shut in, not to mention all the refineries that were knocked out causing bottlenecks. You see, when you have a market that is in tight suppy (demand outpacing supply) and you have a fear or even worse yet an actual supply disruption, prices tend to spike. Over time when supplies come back online, prices find a medium. 2006 the value of the US dollar plummeted. SO the next time you hear something about US oil supplies, remember, what matters most aren't supply levels in Cushing OK, but rather Demand growth coming from the BRIC nations. ill-informed people like yourself tend to believe that what happens here in the US dictates overall prices. That' the way it use to be, not anymore. Oil and commodities are more driven by demand growth, and where is the growth? the BRIC and periphery nations. I call you ill-informed, because, well, that's what you are, or you wouldn't of referred to Cushion Ok Oil supplies for your case against high oil prices for 2005-2006. Everyone in the know in this industry understands this. Having said all that, without a doubt, whenever a "story" that supports a Bull case for oil prices or for that matter anything that can be traded causes prices to go higher, prices can get overdone, or what we refer to in our business a bit "frothy", simply put Overbought. But those are short-term developments that ALWAYS correct, which play virtually no role in the overall trajectory of prices. So speculators that choose to add to the froth at these overbought levels, usually tend to get their asses handed to them unless they trade with really tight stops.