not that i beleive in TA but mildly bullish:
Medium Term Indicators
40 Day Commodity Channel Index Hold
50 Day Moving Average vs Price Sell
20 - 100 Day MACD Oscillator Buy
50 Day Parabolic Time/Price Buy
Medium Term Indicators Average: 25% - Buy
50-Day Average Volume - 2459668
Long Term Indicators
60 Day Commodity Channel Index Hold
100 Day Moving Average vs Price Buy
50 - 100 Day MACD Oscillator Buy
Long Term Indicators Average: 67% - Buy
100-Day Average Volume - 2931538
Democrats foresquarely stood behind Saddams ousting, that is until G W Bush took office and finally did something. Then, regardless of any previous "convivtions", it became politically expedient to flip flop in light of this Presidents unprecedented popularity.
To wit: Dems' statements before & after Bush took office. Al Franken & the other below sub-humans now qualify for "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", who now are all conveniently screeching "WHAT WMD's ??"
The outright partisan hypocrisy is numbing and 9/10 citizens are clueless, just as the Dems would prefer.
W J Clinton 2/17/98 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program.
Pelosi 12/16/99 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the developement of weapons of mass destrucction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspections process"
Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy 9/27/02
"We have known for many years that Saddam is seeking and developing WMD's."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence shows that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missle delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, includin Al Qaida members. It is clear however, that if left unchecked, Saddam will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develope nuclear weapons."
Wake up America - see the left for who they really are. Their falsity, whether through intention or ignorance, is unexcusable - they beg crushing once and for all. Nothing is more important for our future than pro-growth policies, do not let the left drag and dumb us down for ANOTHER fifty years !!!!! We have had enough.
Liberals sheltered communists, Hoover was on to them, so they called him a fag. With precisely as much evidence as they had for McCarthy's alleged homosexuality, the left giddily "gay"-baited J. Edgar Hoover. Their sensitivity to homophobia was matched only by their sensitivity to the civil rights of Japanese.
While Hoover was alive, any journalist who could have proved he was "gay" would have won a Pulitzer Prize. But they couldn't get Hoover on a jaywalking charge. Only after he was dead did liberals go hog-wild inventing lurid fantasies about Hoover showing up at Washington cocktail parties in drag (perhaps not recognizing their own Pamela Harriman).
In 2003, the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival put on a musical comedy about Hoover's apocryphal homosexuality in "J. Edgar! The Musical," written by Harry Shearer and Tom Leopold. While slandering a dead man with impunity, rich celebrities - in Aspen, Colo., no less - paid tribute to their own dauntless courage. For the second year in a row, the festival celebrated the First Amendment, giving its "Freedom of Speech Award" to millionaire leftist Michael Moore, in an event hosted by Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to a president whose IRS audited people who engaged in free speech against him. The executive director of the festival, Stu Smiley, said the purpose of the festival was "to reacquaint ourselves with people who have sacrificed for their right to express themselves."
Liberals' conception of sacrifice is rather broad, including:
to work for up to three weeks for less than $1 million;
and to not be showered with praise by Veterans of Foreign Wars while burning the American flag.
Americans should thank God that McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon, Chambers and Reagan were men enough to make real sacrifices.
July 2, 2003 Ann Coulter
On our nation's birthday, it is appropriate to honor the five men who did the most to defend our freedom in the last century. The names are easy to remember - they are the five men most loathed by liberals: Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Reagan.
McCarthy died censured and despised at 48 years old, his name a malediction. Hoover is maligned for having been a mad spymaster and is lyingly smeared as a cross-dresser - by people who admire cross-dressers. Nixon was forced to resign the presidency in disgrace. Though persecuted in his day, Whittaker Chambers is not hated today only on a technicality: The MTV generation doesn't know who he is. They'd hate him too, but it would take research. By contrast, Ronald Reagan has prevailed over the left's campaign of lies only because the American people do remember him - so far.
Notwithstanding the left's fantastic lies, these men won a 50-year war because of the abiding anti-communism of the American people. These are the heroes of the Cold War, and all have been personally reviled for their trouble.
The left's shameful refusal to admit collaboration with one of the great totalitarian regimes of the last century - like their defense of Bill Clinton - quickly transformed into a vicious slander campaign against those who bore witness against them. Caught absolutely red-handed, liberals started in with their typical bellicose counterattacks. Half a century ago, Louis Budenz, an ex-communist informant, warned investigators that if they dared go after the Communist Party, they would be subjected to savage attacks, never "honest rebuttal." Unless the American people understood that, he said, all was lost.
Absurdly, liberals claim to hate J. Edgar Hoover because of their passion for civil liberties. The left's exquisite concern for civil liberties apparently did not extend to the Japanese. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt rounded up Japanese for the internment camps, liberals were awed by his genius. The Japanese internment was praised by liberal luminaries such as Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black. Joseph Rauh, a founder of Americans for Democratic Action - and celebrated foe of "McCarthyism" - supported the internment.
There was one lonely voice in the Roosevelt administration opposed to the Japanese internment - that of J. Edgar Hoover. The American Civil Liberties Union gave J. Edgar Hoover an award for wartime vigilance during World War II. It was only when he turned his award-winning vigilance to Soviet spies that liberals thought Hoover was a beast.
Liberals deemed it appropriate to throw Japanese citizens into internment camps on the basis of no evidence of subversive activity whatsoever. But it was outrageous for the FBI director to spy on high government officials taking their orders from Moscow. As we now know, Hoover didn't need to engage in much surveillance to know who the Soviet agents were - he already knew from decrypted Soviet cables.
The IMF is not alone in its acknowledgement of supply-side truths. Across the street, the World Bank has done similar studies. In 1993, one of them came to this conclusion: "Above a certain level of the official tariff rate, further increases in the official rate produces no increase (and there is some evidence of a decrease) in the collected rate."
Even though supply-siders often criticize Bank and Fund policies, the fact is that they are more receptive to their ideas than universities because they have to operate in the real world. Every day, they see the consequences of excessive tax rates in operation in countries that need revenue a lot more than feel-good redistributionist policies. They can't afford to overtax the rich, or they will just move or bribe the tax officials to leave them alone. Either way, the government doesn't get any tax revenue to spend on pressing social needs.
Furthermore, Bank and Fund officials have seen with their own eyes the impact of low marginal tax rates in places like Russia, where implementation of a 13 percent flat tax in 2001 led to a significant increase in government revenue. Although rates were much higher under the old system, evasion was so pervasive that little revenue was actually collected. Under the new system, it was no longer worth as much to risk punishment for evasion, leading to increased compliance and higher revenues.
OK, my friends at TAPPED might say, but what about academia? Isn't supply-side economics still ignored there? The answer is no. A good example is Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago. After many years of dismissing supply-side economics in much the same way TAPPED does, he finally took a serious look at it. In a 1990 article in the Oxford Economic Papers, he admitted that he had been wrong, that reducing taxes on capital could in fact deliver a huge economic windfall, just as the supply-siders had argued.
Said Lucas, "The supply-side economists, if that is the right term for those whose research I have been discussing, have delivered the largest genuinely free lunch I have seen in 25 years in this business, and I believe we would have a better society if we followed their advice."
Earlier this year, Lucas reiterated support for supply-side policies in his presidential address to the American Economic Association. He compared supply-side economics with Keynesian stabilization policies and found the former far superior to the latter. "The potential gains from improved stabilization policies are on the order of hundredths of a percent of consumption, perhaps two orders of magnitude smaller than the potential benefits of available 'supply-side' fiscal reforms," he concluded.
Space prohibits the presentation of further evidence, of which there is ample. Suffice it to say that supply-side economics is far from the academic outcast its enemies wish it was.
Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a TownHall.com member group.
�2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
You are clueless. My unbrain washing came way before Rush made the scene. I was a dope smokin long haired Viet Nam protester in the late sixties. I WAS IN IT before you were born I'd bet !!!!!!! I had been talking to a carpenter who was relating the union practices at the Hutchinson Island Nuke plant in Martin Co. FL. They would take turns "looking out" and sleeping, brought camp stoves and sleeping bags. A "journeyman" wouldn't walk five feet to get a 2x4 off the stack. A laborer HAD to do that. If he needed a small piece, it was cut from a new one, never a scrap piece. The building trades unions are constantly fighting with each other over those jobs that are peripheral to each. Yes, and while some teachers aren't overpaid, many are. Their pay is based on tenure, not performance, like the private sectors. It a special interest coddled by the left and is a huge Dem power base. A mutual coruption, if you like.
Read the books!!!!! Then tell me I am wrong.
Laffer Curve / Supply side argument:
In a recent column, I defended supply-side economics from an attack by Princeton economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times Magazine. One of the rare civil criticisms I got came from my friends at TAPPED, the web log of the liberal American Prospect magazine. Their point is that Krugman was justified in his attack because supply-siders have no academic allies, despite a large number of conservative economics professors. "Supply-side ideas simply won't stand up under scrutiny," TAPPED wrote.
As it happens, around the time I was reading this blog entry, I had on my desk a recent paper from the International Monetary Fund, "An Analysis of the Underground Economy and Its Macroeconomic Consequences." Right on page one it has this to say: "Our model simulations show that in the absence of budgetary flexibility to adjust expenditures, raising tax rates too high drives firms into the underground economy, thereby reducing the tax base."
In other words, the Laffer Curve works -- and this from an organization hardly known as a hotbed of supply-side economics. Nor is this the only instance in which the IMF has acknowledged fundamental truths about supply-side economics.
-- As long ago as 1987, it published an entire book titled, "Supply-Side Tax Policy: Its Relevance to Developing Countries."
-- In 1997, it published a paper on Social Security reform in France that contained this finding: "The simulation results ... point to the presence of 'self-financing,' whereby reductions in various tax rates lead to lower budget deficits in the long run, as the result of an expanding tax base and lower unemployment insurance outlays."
-- In 1999, it held a seminar on trade policy that came to this conclusion: "A number of countries maintain tariff rates that exceed revenue maximizing levels. These countries could liberalize, at least initially, without significant adverse consequences for revenues from trade taxes."
>Think we are bad off in Iraq now? Put the Democrats in and it'll be like the French running our foreign policy,
That's right. What the Hell do the French know about Islamic terrorism. It is not like they have been fighting Islamic terrorism for 40 years with a country just across the Mediterraen sea from them or anything like that!
Wow . . . brainwashed by Michael Savage & Rush, are we?
>pro big gov't,
Oh yeah, good think we have small government Bush in there . . . he's wiped out out the deficits with his small government.
Compared to what? Do you have any idea how our taxation policy compares to that of most Western European nations? Who should we be modeling our taxation policy on . . . you preference would seem to be Iraq.
>They have liberally indoctrinated generations in acedemia, where only less than 10% of teachers and professors are NOT Democrats.
Could it be that highly educate professors have looked at the various policies and have decided they tend to like the Democratic policies more? Naw . . they have been 'indoctrinated' by . . . uh . . . by aliens I guess.
>This is but one huge union among hundreds that contribute 100% to
>the Democrats and which only 10% of which is legally reported to the FEC.
Yeah, those school teachers are nothing but big fat cats that control government with donations from their huge bloated paychecks.
>They are running scared that Americans are finally going to realize the total unabashed hypocrisy of the left.
Yeah, Bush has shown us that the corporate big-wigs on the right would never allow the companies that they work for to get multi-billion contracts government contracts like some dependent welfare mother that just sucks off the government's tit.
>Over taxation drives capital out of the job creating realm and into tax free or offshore investments.
Uh . . . yeah, that's right, our tax system is *so* much higher than Germany, France, the UK, Scandinavian, etc.
>Repeal of ANY of the tax cuts would be a disaster. The deficit, while exacerbated by terrorism,
Yeah, those tax cuts had nothing to do with the defict.
>is directly from the recession handed to GWB by the most selfish, egotisical president in
>my lifetime. He single handedly torpedoed, (or coreographed?), the longest period of
>growth created by the Reagan tax cuts, with his greatest in history tax increases.
Yeah, that's right . . . the economy went no where except down after the *1993* tax hike designed to lower the deficit.
>The left has been a festering ugly pustule on the fair face of American heritage and ideals
>since the unconstitutional New Deal and the infiltration of that Democrat administration by communists.
Yeah, we need the First Amendment defender with faith-based-programs the Fourth Amendment defender with the Patriot Acts.
>JFK would be rolling over in his grave to hear his brother Ted Kennedy, the dispicable
> Chappaquidick murderer, providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
That's right . . . how dare he spew nothing but falsehoods! We are not bribing *anyone*!
>I will, without fail, vote for the party that the terrorists LEAST want to see in power.
That's right . . . who cares if we go bankrupt!
>you would do the Country well by really learning about the left.
>I couldn't more highly recommend "Treason" by Ann Coulter a true patriot.
And so full of hard truths!
Keep up the fight brother, don't let anything like facts get in your way!
I think by next fall the liberal media will no longer be able to hide the fact that we're in a recovery, as they've conspired to do so far.
Funny how the Democraps in the House and Senate are all of a "seriously worried" about the $22B for Iraq's infrastructure, while trying to load up every spending bill with vote buying additional spending. They are two-faced liars of the worst kind possible. I watch them all every day, lie after lie. They are abusing the public trust and misusing their office, solely in the name of politics.
Fed rate and tax cuts, or increases, take 6-12 months to work their ways into the economic numbers, and numbers ARE accelerating, as are numbers of certain market sectors.
The recession was irrefutably under way before Clinton left office. The logic then, is that it was Clinton's policies that started it, but was slowed and prolonged by the cap gains cuts and welfare reforms, both vetoed and eventually signed by Clinton, and then he has the unmitigated gall to act like they were his ideas instead of GOP/Newt's, incredible. And America watches the Simpsons, yawns through it all, catches the most venomous soundbites or pays no attention at all. I couldn't be more ashamed of the generations of nitwits created by the left. Not one pupil in my daughter's college history class could name the Secretary of Defense. A man who will go down in history as one of America's finest patriots, that is, what isn't lyingly revised by the left and of which revisionism there is a huge history.
Bush I's cyclical recession was one of the shallowest and shortest in recent history and GDP WAS accelerating in his last qtr in office. HE, handed Clinton an economy on the upswing, while Clinton handed GWB one on the downswing. It is irrefutable. Wake up dolts.
It really galls me that Americans are so dumbed down that they can't yet see we have GDP growth and that the recession was declared over some months ago. If the lying Dems had allowed the full tax cuts wanted, we would be much further into the recovery than we are. But that dear friends wouldn't have met the Dems goals of stalling the recovery long enough to STEAL another one.
CA's McClintock is eminently more qualified vis a vis his solid grasp of the economics of growth, than a single Democrap contender. Each one, a laughable excuse for a Constitution following American patriot.
Fiscal Conservatives are generally better educated by choice not station, pay more attention to politics, are usually entrepreneurs versus union workers, and understand economics better than most Democrats. Small business owners certainly know more about economics than career Democrap politions!
AMEN sister !!!!!!!!!
We are at one of the most important cross roads in American history with the coming social security debacle. The Boomers had better set aside their recreational drugs awhile, grow some spine and see the leftist-socialist Democrat party for the destructive, disincentivistic, disempowering, pro big gov't, anti-growth policy, terrorist coddling, power hungry, taxation discriminatory, pigs at the public trough they are. They have liberally indoctrinated generations in acedemia, where only less than 10% of teachers and professors are NOT Democrats. This is but one huge union among hundreds that contribute 100% to the Democrats and which only 10% of which is legally reported to the FEC. These shameless wealth redistributors couldn't be farther afield from the Founder's visions, where it is the individual versus the collective, that is constitutionally guaranteed freedom from all forms of Federal discrimination; equal protection under the law, with the exception of financial discrimination. They are running scared that Americans are finally going to realize the total unabashed hypocrisy of the left. They wouldn't be more pleased to see GWB fail no matter what consequence to our Country. Their religion IS politics, not truth, not freedom, not equality, not growth, not strength and not empowerment of the individual to make the best life he can and accumulate wealth with the least burdensome Gov't possible. It is their own power above ALL else and keeping the votes of those made dependent on them. As Chris Williams, a speach writer for ex-Spkr of the House Democrat Tip O'Neil, so intuitively remarked last night, "the Democrats are those looking for work and the Republicans are the ones making jobs for themselves AND the workers. Over taxation drives capital out of the job creating realm and into tax free or offshore investments. Repeal of ANY of the tax cuts would be a disaster. The deficit, while exacerbated by terrorism, is directly from the recession handed to GWB by the most selfish, egotisical president in my lifetime. He single handedly torpedoed, (or coreographed?), the longest period of growth created by the Reagan tax cuts, with his greatest in history tax increases. Grasso takes the heat for playing fair and Terry McAuliffe takes millions in Global Crossing profits. Not much mentioned about that is there? How'd he know to get out before the crash?? A la Martha Stewart??
The left has been a festering ugly pustule on the fair face of American heritage and ideals since the unconstitutional New Deal and the infiltration of that Democrat administration by communists.
JFK would be rolling over in his grave to hear his brother Ted Kennedy, the dispicable Chappaquidick murderer, providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He should be lynched the bloated piece of human garbage.
I will, without fail, vote for the party that the terrorists LEAST want to see in power. If you value the ideals America was founded on, you would do the Country well by really learning about the left. I couldn't more highly recommend "Treason" by Ann Coulter a true patriot.