Comments by Fossil American

Mr. Adam Black, the gentleman didn't say he is a professor in an English speaking country/university.

English could be a second language for him.

Mr./Ms. Newphilo, some are (working at a dollar store). What a damn waste, PhD, literally selling gas. This recession is the first time that college grads are doing worst than non-college educated. I heard that on news radio couple of days ago but I did not pay enough attention to remember whether they are comparing raw number or percentage (of unemployed degree holder, vs mere high school grads.)

And I thought it was bad when an MBA was reduced to mounting car mufflers and changing oil. What a damn waste.

Ah, well, as you have said, be optimistic. Things are indeed looking up. Obama should be on the way out. A few weeks back, Obama lost over 41% of the votes in the West Virginia primary to a convicted felon. Yesterday, he lost 42% of the vote to "uncommitted” in Kentucky. So, people are indeed waking up. There is a reason to be optimistic.

It is however annoying to me still, for someone as unqualified as Obama is, to judge others. He has no experience before becoming president. All he managed to do in his first 3 years is to mess up utterly, destroyed million of jobs, and yet he judge others as if he has any credibility. This man has no shame. How could we have been so foolish.

Come now, Mr. Hedgefundguy, no way you can be so easily fooled. You must be pulling my leg. Unemployment dropping? 111,000 new jobs is not even enough to cover the normal population increase. At 111,000 new jobs a month, we are still in negative jobs territory by over 100,000. You know that. You are trying to pull my leg.

The unemployment RATE is dropping, unemployment itself is increasing. Last month’s US Labor dept report, our workforce is at a 30 year low. You have to go back 30 years (1981) to have so FEW people employed!

I am sure as more people are dropped from being counted, the unemployment rate will continue to decrease as unemployment continue to increase.

Admit it, Mr. O. Economy just isn’t your cup of tea. Like asking a blind to explain the color green and red, so of course you don’t understand what Mitt can do. You have no idea what can be done, or what should be done. Running an economy is rather a more difficult task than community agitation,

The best thing you Mr. Obama can do for America is to resign.

I am tired of my friends being unemployed. I am tired of seeing businesses close. I am tired of I am tired empty parking lots; I am tired of record high unemployment. I am tired of historic low labor participation rate. I am tired of hearing America apologizing.

How about it, Mr. O? At least do ONE thing that is good for the country. Leave for Chicago early. Go agitate some community in Chicago so the Obama recession can end. America will begin to recover once we have someone who understands basic arithmetic.

TE wrote: "...Facebook’s shares are now trading at the upper end of the $28 to $35 price range it initially set for them..."

* * *

$35 would still have been high. (Closed at $34.03 today)

Goes to show, narcissism only go so far. Most people are not interested in most people on Facebook, and most people with a page eventually find out most other people are not interested in them however deeply in love they are with their own selves. So, eventually, most people realize it takes a lot more than a web page to make others interested in them. At the point, it makes having a page on Facebook rather pointless.

Then again, I am not an investment advisor, I am shall we say merely guessing... I suspect the initial $35+ was too many people missed out on the boat from prior IPO’s: from Microsoft to Google; they still hear stories about people who brought Microsoft at $6 and made a bundle. They think the money tree is there for the shaking. They want to make sure they don’t miss out on this one at all cost, and boy, they are paying the cost now. It closes today at $34.03.

Google has more revenue streams (GoogleApp, Storage, Adwords, so forth) and it trades at 10x. Facebook with their single rusted stream wants almost 100x price-earning ratio. I suspect Facebook will land south of $20 well before year-end.

Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful replies. With due respect, I must resign from this conversation – some work related stuff I must handle...

Bye

McJakome, let me reassure you, I took no offense. We all have our short comings. I immigrated to the USA to avoid communism and I have literally smelled the blood spilled by it. So, I have my own knee jerk reactions to big government. When a commenter is obnoxious, I let my own childish behavior come out and be obnoxious back. So, we are all guilty of something.

As an immigrant, I know first hand how it is like when legal documents alone separate you from the ones you love. Seeing Mr. Reed’s note about not being able to get a green card for his husband, I had the urge to show sympathy to Mr. Reed. That was the main reason of my post.

I failed to realize how highly charged and emotional subject to some. The “jumping on me” I was objecting to was not from you alone, it was from all the other commenter as well. So you should not feel guilty and the need to apologize. I think they inferred something I clearly did not even say.

In my voicing my support of making civil union same as marriage and my support of “don’t ask don’t tell”. But everyone inferred it as me rejecting gays in the military and jumped on me. I failed to realize this could be a very emotionally charge subject for some, and what they may infer. Live and learn.

Mr./Ms. McJakome,

No apology required but your respectfulness and consideration is much appreciated.

I am non-white. (I am not a Christian either.) But I think if we get stuck on that and make too many decision for today based on “what was” rather than "what is", we will never make progress. We will be like “the generals always preparing for the last war rather than the next.”

Thanks. I always appreciate respectfulness.

Hey, don't jump on me for staying how far I agreed. That I believe is counter-productive. If we always move forward and go as far as we can agree, that would be a good thing. Otherwise, we make no progress until we have 100% agreement.

In any event, my statement of consolation was specifically to Mr. Reed. I was attempting to be sympathetic to Mr. Nicholas Reed regarding the issue with applying for green card for his husband.

If one cannot state a disagreement without being attacked, finding solution will be difficult. I am in support of civil union with the same legal rights as marriage. I stated my doubts about applying that within the military.

I believe it is a good thing to try to go forward as far as general agreement go, then resolve remaining disagreement when opportunity arises.

Jouris, two things…

(1) your point about Romney

I too have reservations about Romney’s understanding of the small business. I spend two decades in large Fortune 500/1000 firms. When I was in a fortune 500, I lacked the appreciation and respect for what small business folks had to handle with minimal resource.

What does encourage me about Romney is I observed many of the attributes I read in business books about what is a good bosses. He shows many of the good-boss attributes. Along with his understanding of how business works, it encourages me to be hopeful.

(2) As to my choice of words “war on business”

Have you seen the video on “crucify the first 5 you ran across”? That was a video Obama’s regional EPA head Mr. Armendariz made to presumably his staff a couple of years back. Roughly, he said: “If you crucified the first 5 guys you ran across, the rest become easy to handle.” You should see that video. They (federal regulators) behave exactly like that. I know, I met with some before.

Go watch that video, it is on youtube. If you think “war on business” is too strong a term to describe that attitude, I will listen to an alternative you propose.

Well, it is late, I gotta wrap up my stuff and call it a day. Have a nice weekend, Jouris

Jouris,

I have replied on other occasion that I am a small business guy and I talk to fellow small business owners both to learn and to potentially make them want my service.

Within the week of Obamacare, out of the around 40 I know closely, four of them throw the towel in. One moved his business to somewhere in the Caribbean. As with most small businesses, we don’t have a legal department, so we learn most of our “facts” from newsletter, small business groups, and from each other. "Hey, what did you find out with..." are frequent conversation topics. So, I ask them point blank “why?” Their answers are too long to repeat here, but bottom line is, regulations will increase cost beyond what they can bare.

This below I have not shared before, but since we have had on-going conversation and you have always been respectful and civil, I feel the need to be more complete. (That said, I still want to hide enough so that the Obama-supporting side of the family does not know this is me. It makes easier holiday get-together.)

My partners and I had expansion plans at the time. We were planning on hiring about 4-5 part time guys to accelerate certain aspects of our business, with in mind one of the part time guy will become long term. This investment is heavy and hearing from fellow business owner was not enough for us. So we actually went to see a lawyer for a morning and then some. Lawyer is not cheap, that was a good size expense right there. Bottom line is, law is passed but rules resulted by the law are not yet written. The law itself is unreadable as it is, and yet-to-be-written rules can not be predicted. It is even possible that the rules (and penalties) are retroactive to the day of law passage or even before. (In 1993 Bill Clinton successfully introduced a tax increase applying retroactively. So when the lawyer suggested possible retroactive liability is not unbelievable to me.) He has no idea of what the liability could be if we carry through with our expansion. No one will re-mortgage his house to invest in something with know liability of unknown magnitude.

I don’t think Obama intends a war on small business, but he has no idea how some of his ideas and policies affect business.

Two case and points: (For readability, I put his rules in quotes and my comment after, but they are not exact verbatim quotes)

(1) His labor department floated the idea that “not hiring someone who is without a high school diploma could be viewed as discriminatory.” Are you kidding me? I can’t even ask if the guy graduated high school?

(2) In attempting to help the older unemployed, they said: “that your are over 50, interviewed, and did not get the job, you could sue for age discrimination!” (I heard this on ABC radio news, but I do not remember who or which department of this administration said it. I remember the content well but not whom ABC were quoting) Great, WHO in the right mind would interview you if it is a potential legal liability just giving an interview? And they think this actually help the over-50?

This is pure single layer thinking. Like in chess game thinking merely what you could do the next move if you move this piece there now, but entirely overlooks what your opponent’s next move would be and what opportunity your move just opened for your opponent. I cited two, but I see this administration making such crazy ideas from these people all the time.

The chilling effect of his regulations and the heavy handed approach kills investment. His EPA regional chief (crucify the first 5 guys you see) is reflective of what is Obama approach. As his advisor and most frequent visitor to the white house said “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power.”

No business, big or small, can really fight the power of the Federal Government. Avoidance therefore is best. When business avoid doing things, economy suffers.

Again, I accept that he does not intend to have a war on small business; but his policies, his activities, and the environment he created tantamount to exactly that.

Melissia,

No doubt some Republicans are exactly as you said: “The Republicans wouldn't know how to do an economic recovery if it slapped them in the face.” They are just like Obama and never worked a single day in a private sector job. Most of their adult lives, like Obama, they make their living on the public’s back.

We need to get rid of those from government. We need people who relates to the general public and understand the private sector. Chief among those of course is Obama himself.

The destruction Obama caused to the US economy is historic. Record long term unemployment, 30 year low in work force participation, record debt - historic gigantic mess up this President managed to do.

I look forward to Obama’s defeat and America’s recovery.

Ah, not to be accused of omission: Obama did work for a non-profit for a while. A Saul Alinsky inspired socialist group where he was paid and received training as community organizer. That group is not a private business so I am not counting that as employment in private sector business. I forgot the name of that group off the top of my head. That they are inspired directly by socialist Saul Alinsky was prominent on their website. I am sure you can find that on the web somewhere.

Mr./Ms. Meme1,

Short of a national disaster, it is not the job of the Federal Government to feed the people. It is the people’s job to feed themselves. The best the Federal Government can do is to get out of people’s ways so businesses can grow and the people can find a job.

I will agree that Obama is the national disaster; thus the Federal Government should feed the people under this national disaster that is the Obama administration. But first, the Federal Government can and should cut all the waste. EPA, Energy Department, HHS, etc. are things that “We the People” did not give permission for it to do in the power we enumerated in the Constitution. The defense budget is around 20-25% I think, that leaves at least 75% of the budget on the table to be cut.

So let say we compromise and the democrats agree to immediately cut 80% of non-defense spending like the EPA and Energy Department. That should free up trillions. If that is not enough to feed the people under this Obama Recession, I will agree we need to increase some tax.

So far the Dems walk off the table and refused ANY cuts unless tax is first increased. They are the ones not compromising… The Democrats are a bunch obstructionist.

So, the right way for “We the People” to handle it is to vote these obstructionist out - including those Republicans who sings their tune of the “non-cutters” instead of respecting what “We The People” enumerated in the power we granted them.

Nicholas, I am sorry you have to deal with the issues you described.

If it is a consolation, many conservatives I know are like me in support of civil union having the same legal rights as marriage. We are objecting the redefining the word "marriage" but not in objection to gay civil union couples having the same legal rights granted to married couples.

Exception is in the military. I am not sure I can support an environment where a gay soldier is forced to be lying next to someone who may see him/her a sex object. Within the military, I would support (former law) "don't ask don't tell" where sexual preference or sexual acts are straightly off limit. Allowing say gay housing in the base would clearly bridged the "don't tell" part. So I am not sure I where I stand there.

Apart from the concerns regarding military, I am all for civil union couples having the same legal rights as married couples.

Mr. Wong,

Unless we have as many parties as we have individuals, a party will never be able to fully represent an individual. We each have our own views.

We ally ourselves with a party because that party represents more of our view than the other parties. 70% agreement is better than 69% agreement.

Ron Paul for example is a Libertarian. He allied himself with the GOP. There is just more in common between him and the GOP verses between him and the Democrats. Allying himself with the GOP takes him closer to his goal than allying with Democrat would.

Meme1, you and I disagree.

Compromise is not a central part of any government. Principle cannot be compromised.

To draw an extreme example, would it have been better to compromise with Hitler and let him just slaughter 3 million instead of 6 million? Would you consider sitting by doing nothing while he slaughters 3 million a successful compromise? When the goal cannot be achieved, however noble the goal may be, than compromise is a necessary evil. Had we not been able to defeat Hitler, than limiting the slaughter is the best we can do. But we must first try our best to stop him.

Back to today:

I agree it is not desirable to have a small number of rich people and large number of people not making it. The solution is not to reduce the number of rich but rather to increase the number of rich. We cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. So, punish the rich is wrong. To comprise to allow “some bad” when we have the mean to “stop the bad” is wrong.

We achieve by reaching for a goal. Compromising is for when we found a goal not worth fighting for, or when a goal is not achievable. Otherwise, compromising is a merely a lazy way out.

From my perspective, if the GOP cannot turn back the destruction, they must stop any new destruction from occurring. Compromising and let “a little more” new destruction is not acceptable to me when we can stop the new destruction by merely voting NO.

One more point, Jouris,

Factoring in population growth and inflation, the economy has not been growing or recovering. Rarely did we have a month where the job growth covered population growth plus new job lost. Most months under Obama were net-lost for jobs once you factored in population growth and new job lost.

GDP growth thus far is 2.2% per year. Observed inflation is way beyond that.

Even with unemployment rate (U3), it came down purely because of people “dropping out”. You may say “that is always the way unemployment rate is calculated.” But never had we hand so many who got dropped. Our labor participation rate is at a 30 year low. Our working population is at a 30 year low. So we have reached a point where ignoring the long-term unemployed skewed the number too much to be usable.

Let’s just say, the population grown equals the retirement, our unemployment rate would be around 11%. Apart from employed-unemployed, there is the group that wants a full time job but can only find part time employment. The U6 which included the under-employed is around 14%-15%.

This is devastation we have no seen in generations. Obama is a historic President in more ways than one. This Obama depression will be written in American history.

Mr. Alfred Wong,

You and I are both fighting for America. We just have different vision for America.

For me, I am an American by choice (may be for you as well) as oppose to by accident of birth. I immigrate to America to avoid communism. I will do every bit possible to fight against America moving closer to socialism, communism, or cradle-to-grave government.

Obama said "this you are on your own doesn't work." This mindset is a fundamental difference I and many traditional Americans have with him. To us, America means self-reliance. America is a place where your will and your ability to achieve determine outcome. Obama's vision is government determining outcome. Our vision is equal opportunity whereas Obama’s vision is equal outcome. The reason why America is not working now is precisely because of Obama's lack of understanding in what makes America tick.

I look forward to defeating Obama and people like Lugar and return to an America where your ambition and your ability is your only limit to how high you can achieve, and we won’t punish you merely because you achieved.

I know your view is different. You and I will fight for our vision in a civil and lawful manner. That is democracy at work.

Jouris - hey, long time no talk, how are you... (I suppose neither of us changed. I am still disagreeing with you.)

The cyclic slow down did start in the Bush era. A cyclic down turn is something businesses have experience dealing with and businesses were not in panic.

The panic started with Obama’s war on small business. War on business is alien to America. That is when panic started and the bottom felt out. His lawless behavior such as “tired of waiting for congress” and rule by fiat, and his administrations openly ignoring judge rulings further reduces business confidence. Look at how his auto industry bailout totally ignores existing laws and put his union buddies over bond holders. Who will invest when the government can easily take away what is by law rightfully yours? Look at how he declared congress in recess to make recess appointment when congress was not in recess.

Laws mean something in America. It is our law-based societies that have given American business and Americans the confidence in government. Obama’s lawless behavior undermined that very foundation of America.

The recovery therefore must begin with voting out the Obama regime. Once he is gone, business confidence will begin to recovery. The economy recovery will follow upon restoration of business confidence.

Compromise only works when the issue is not binary. Obama's policies are destructive to America. So, compromise with such policies makes no sense.

The only way is to stop Obama, send him back to Chicago to stop the destruction that is the Obama Depression.