"Cliff" wrote in message
...
Leading indicators ....

The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
(see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
numbers already (after only about a year).

"U.S. corporate earnings should top forecasts again in
the first quarter ..."

"Standard & Poor's 500 companies' first-quarter profits are seen up 36.8
percent versus a year ago, which would be a second straight quarter of
year-over-year profit growth,"

""We're seeing stronger economic data than what we expected, and that
should
translate into a little bit better revenue growth.""

"The S&P 500 now is up 76 percent from its March 2009... "

The rethugs & wingers want to change all this .... remember what they did
last time ...
--
Cliff

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the future
generations!

RogerN

RogerN wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
Leading indicators ....

The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
(see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
numbers already (after only about a year).

"U.S. corporate earnings should top forecasts again in
the first quarter ..."

"Standard & Poor's 500 companies' first-quarter profits are seen
up 36.8 percent versus a year ago, which would be a second straight
quarter of year-over-year profit growth,"

""We're seeing stronger economic data than what we expected, and
that should
translate into a little bit better revenue growth.""

"The S&P 500 now is up 76 percent from its March 2009... "

The rethugs & wingers want to change all this .... remember what
they did last time ...

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire world.
"Mission Accomplisherated"


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire world.
"Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending comes out of iirc.

Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.


Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire
world.
"Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending comes
out of iirc.

Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.


Wes

No...No...No...The "But-Bush" Libtard Neo-Socialist Douchebagger crowd has
their pre-programmed mindset and will spout what their handlers at "Move-On,
Kos, and Huffington TELL them to think! Don't confuse them with facts, just
go along with what ever they say, they are as harmless as they are stupid.
Just useful idiots for their masters.

YEP!!!! ALL Bush's fault!

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire
world. "Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending
comes out of iirc.

But not on the budget Wes. A significant amount of the fresh debt came out
of the Bush White House as supplemental spending authorizations. How does
Congress defund troops in the field? As a practical matter they can't.

GWB can't spend a sent that Congress doesn't authorize. As to defunding the troops, that
is something few politicians want to touch. Now if they would just declare war and do it
right in the first place, we wouldn't have this sort of problem.


Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.

I believe the Courts did that and those bonds wouldn't have been worth the
paper they were written on.
The appropriate value was nearly zero. What was screwed up was that the
holders of GM and Chrysler Credit Default Swaps couldn't get paid off since
they took new debt + stock. There was also a fair amount of just CDS's that
didn't pay either.

The true value is zero, same as the UAW contracts. Somehow the bondholders got a hair cut
nad the union got their pay off. GM should have gone Chapter 7. I guess GM was too big
to fail.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire
world. "Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending
comes out of iirc.

But not on the budget Wes. A significant amount of the fresh debt came out
of the Bush White House as supplemental spending authorizations. How does
Congress defund troops in the field? As a practical matter they can't.

Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.

I believe the Courts did that and those bonds wouldn't have been worth the
paper they were written on.
The appropriate value was nearly zero. What was screwed up was that the
holders of GM and Chrysler Credit Default Swaps couldn't get paid off since
they took new debt + stock. There was also a fair amount of just CDS's that
didn't pay either.

--
John R. Carroll

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the
entire world. "Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending
comes out of iirc.

But not on the budget Wes. A significant amount of the fresh debt
came out of the Bush White House as supplemental spending
authorizations. How does Congress defund troops in the field? As a
practical matter they can't.

GWB can't spend a sent that Congress doesn't authorize. As to
defunding the troops, that is something few politicians want to
touch. Now if they would just declare war and do it right in the
first place, we wouldn't have this sort of problem.


Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip
off.

I believe the Courts did that and those bonds wouldn't have been
worth the paper they were written on.
The appropriate value was nearly zero. What was screwed up was that
the holders of GM and Chrysler Credit Default Swaps couldn't get
paid off since they took new debt + stock. There was also a fair
amount of just CDS's that didn't pay either.

The true value is zero,

Bond holders were entitled to the liquidation proceeds.


--
John R. Carroll

On 4/10/2010 4:25 PM, Wes wrote:
"John R. wrote:

It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
future generations!

Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire world.
"Mission Accomplisherated"


Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending comes out of iirc.

Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.


Wes


It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
loaf is a lot better than nothing.

Hawke

On Apr 11, 6:13*pm, Hawke wrote:



It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
loaf is a lot better than nothing.

Hawke

It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
everything. The bond holders just like other creditors would have
received their portion of the assets.

Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
stock, I would sell it.

Dan

wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:13 pm, Hawke wrote:



It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could
have followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go
bankrupt. Then the bond holders would have lost everything. You
think they would have preferred we did it that way? Or do you think
they are going to be happier having GM be profitable very soon and
them not losing their entire investment, and making some money as
well? Sometimes a half a loaf is a lot better than nothing.

Hawke

It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
everything.

And did.


The bond holders just like other creditors would have
received their portion of the assets.

Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
stock, I would sell it.

Dan

--
John R. Carroll

On 4/11/2010 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:13 pm, wrote:



It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
loaf is a lot better than nothing.

Hawke

It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
everything. The bond holders just like other creditors would have
received their portion of the assets.

Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
stock, I would sell it.

Dan



You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have heard
the president of GM saying just last week that he expected the company
to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is turning around
and will be a profitable company again. All it took was some backing
from the government to keep it going long enough to come back. And you
think that was a mistake? I don't think giving advice to the government
on how to deal with financial problems is your line of work. You better
stick with what you do now.

Hawke

On Apr 12, 11:33*pm, Hawke wrote:

You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have heard
the president of GM saying just last week that he expected the company
to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is turning around
and will be a profitable company again. All it took was some backing
from the government to keep it going long enough to come back. And you
think that was a mistake? I don't think giving advice to the government
on how to deal with financial problems is your line of work. You better
stick with what you do now.

Hawke

Actually I have a lot of investments. I am retired and the income
from my investments is more than my pension and Social Security
combined.

I would buy Ford before I bought GM or Chrysler. If I were looking to
buy car companies right now, I would be looking at Toyota. They have
better long term prospects than GM.

Dan

On 4/13/2010 3:37 AM, wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:33 pm, wrote:

You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have heard
the president of GM saying just last week that he expected the company
to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is turning around
and will be a profitable company again. All it took was some backing
from the government to keep it going long enough to come back. And you
think that was a mistake? I don't think giving advice to the government
on how to deal with financial problems is your line of work. You better
stick with what you do now.

Hawke

Actually I have a lot of investments. I am retired and the income
from my investments is more than my pension and Social Security
combined.

I would buy Ford before I bought GM or Chrysler. If I were looking to
buy car companies right now, I would be looking at Toyota. They have
better long term prospects than GM.

Dan


Dan,

I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt? If
you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the right
thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to investing you
have to be aware that things are improving all over the place. At some
point credit for that is going to have to go to Obama's handling of the
economy. Of course, there will be those who will not admit that no
matter what.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
On 4/13/2010 3:37 AM, wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:33 pm, wrote:

You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have
heard the president of GM saying just last week that he expected
the company to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is
turning around and will be a profitable company again. All it took
was some backing from the government to keep it going long enough
to come back. And you think that was a mistake? I don't think
giving advice to the government on how to deal with financial
problems is your line of work. You better stick with what you do
now.

Hawke

Actually I have a lot of investments. I am retired and the income
from my investments is more than my pension and Social Security
combined.

I would buy Ford before I bought GM or Chrysler. If I were looking
to buy car companies right now, I would be looking at Toyota. They
have better long term prospects than GM.

Dan


Dan,

I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt?
If you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the
right thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to
investing you have to be aware that things are improving all over the
place. At some point credit for that is going to have to go to
Obama's handling of the economy. Of course, there will be those who
will not admit that no matter what.


The sooner GM kicks the bucket, and they will, the better.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
On 4/13/2010 3:37 AM, wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:33 pm, wrote:

You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have
heard the president of GM saying just last week that he expected
the company to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is
turning around and will be a profitable company again. All it took
was some backing from the government to keep it going long enough
to come back. And you think that was a mistake? I don't think
giving advice to the government on how to deal with financial
problems is your line of work. You better stick with what you do
now.

Hawke

Actually I have a lot of investments. I am retired and the income
from my investments is more than my pension and Social Security
combined.

I would buy Ford before I bought GM or Chrysler. If I were looking
to buy car companies right now, I would be looking at Toyota. They
have better long term prospects than GM.

Dan


Dan,

I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt?
If you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the
right thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to
investing you have to be aware that things are improving all over the
place. At some point credit for that is going to have to go to
Obama's handling of the economy. Of course, there will be those who
will not admit that no matter what.


The sooner GM kicks the bucket, and they will, the better.


--
John R. Carroll



Amen

On Apr 14, 3:50*pm, Hawke wrote:

Dan,

I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt? If
you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the right
thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to investing you
have to be aware that things are improving all over the place. At some
point credit for that is going to have to go to Obama's handling of the
economy. Of course, there will be those who will not admit that no
matter what.

Hawke


I agree that a profitable GM is better than having them go bankrupt.
And if GM does become profitable and stay that way, the government did
the right thing.

And if GM does not become and stay profitable, the government did the
wrong thing. I think we will know the answer in about three years.
My preference is that they stay profitable. But I think it is too
early to be sure what will happen.

Dan

On 4/14/2010 4:26 PM, wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:50 pm, wrote:

Dan,

I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt? If
you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the right
thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to investing you
have to be aware that things are improving all over the place. At some
point credit for that is going to have to go to Obama's handling of the
economy. Of course, there will be those who will not admit that no
matter what.

Hawke


I agree that a profitable GM is better than having them go bankrupt.
And if GM does become profitable and stay that way, the government did
the right thing.

And if GM does not become and stay profitable, the government did the
wrong thing. I think we will know the answer in about three years.
My preference is that they stay profitable. But I think it is too
early to be sure what will happen.

Dan



No one knows the future, which is why there is risk involved in all
investments. The government took a risk in backstopping GM. How's that
going to turn out? We don't know. We won't know for several years. But
right now it looks like it was the right move. I call them like I see
them. Now it looks like it was a smart move to help out GM. In a few
years it may fall apart again. If it does I'll be the first to say it
was a mistake to put money into that firm. But right now it's looking
like Obama's financial moves have been right. Just as it's perfectly
clear that the moves the Bush administration did turned out badly. Facts
are facts. The republicans had at least seven years to try out their
trickle down or supply side, free market economic ideas. They didn't
work. I said they wouldn't right from the get go. Now I'm saying Obama
is doing the right things. In a few years we'll see if I was right
again. But I'm getting pretty good at the predictions game. I guess old
age is good for something.

Hawke