Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 4:00 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BIOLASE, Inc. Message Board

  • oldboldpilot2003 oldboldpilot2003 Sep 3, 2004 2:00 PM Flag

    Latest comment on talk radio OT

    Clinton had his heart attack after watching the Republican convention. Kerry looking pale and wane. Bad day at the DNC.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • diode soft tissue laser FDA aproved today.........
      billions $ worth worldwide ...imo

    • You're right, Don. It's a complicated problem. I'd like to add that one of the key items that made the bust worse was that Greenspan did not then and, I believe, still does not understand that price increases as a result of shortages are not inflationary long term. These prices tend to even out as supply increases. Some pain can result when over or under supply gets too far out of ballance and the Fed can ameliorate that pain to a certain extent. Greenspan says he agrees with the principle of creative destruction but he sometimes does not act like it.

      Our economy and, to a certain extent BLTi, is caught in a very complicated squeeze. We have an expensive war as a result of islamic terror groups that have been hounding us since the '70s, a Europe that is disintegrating, a Russia that,if they are not carefull will be back into the hands of only a few thugs, and on and on. Add to this a very nasty election where the out of power parties have degenerated to the level of the bottom of the septic tank.

      With all of this I'm surprised the market is as healthy as it is and its the reason my cash coffee cans are still buried. It will very likely leave it there untill after the election.

    • <<the only thing i can grant is this question: if clinton had lowered taxes would the impact of the bubble bursting have been less? my answer, probably, although the bubble still would have burst, and even more mortgage would be placed on the future. i'm willing to pay what i figure is smaller pain now to straighten things out vs the bigger pain i and my kids will face later.>>

      Absolutely, Rivvir. Debt is the "elephant in the room" that is threatening the US and Western economies in general IMO. Stimulus without budget reform is like feeding the horses but leaving the wagon brakes on. Problem is anyone looking at this honestly then has to turn their attention to Social Security, Medicare, welfare corporations, welfare countries, and really the entire entitlement culture that has characterized the Western world over the past 50 years. These people and institutions don't want their candy taken away, and they lobby and bribe and vote Congress every day.

      <<i'd need more from you on just what your subjective "surging" really means. and i'd need some facts on the amount of taxes generated by that surge pre-bubble>>

      Not my area of expertise, but I seem to remember tax revenues started going up in the late 80's...but don't hold me to that, I don't honestly know. But the late 90's was the big bubbly climax, and there was money everywhere. I knew a guy who bought a Lexus SUV with his tech stock gains in 1999, who was not a top 25% earner by any stretch of the imagination...he just made lots of money that year and spent it.

      To reframe my point a bit, IBD did a breakdown of the current deficit: 25% was the war, 25% was tax cuts and reduced revenues, and 50% was *new entitlement programs*!!!! Forgive me, but this sh*t has got to stop.

      Anyway back to my trading turret.

      Good day!

      DD

    • "They aren't members of the Bush campaign, like Kerry's crew is."

      lol! you left out the word "official." don't you think it's time to start living in the 21st century?

      by the way, have you looked at hdwr at all? they did get hit yesterday, but that was off their buying another company. last time that happened they got hit severely and wound up recovering to i think a recent new all time high.

      the only thing i don't like about the recent acquisition is it's in the contruction segment of their business. if the current bubble in the florida market does break, and maybe housing construction overall does break, which i'm still not looking for unless a recession comes along, which i don't see, it could be they've made a bad move. but right now they're projecting accretion to earnings, of 10cents per share or more i think was the projection.

      you keep going if you wish pkewl. i'm not buying. regards

    • rivvir, I'm afraid you have lost the argument, but don't want to admit it to yourself or the board. You claim I have ignored the facts, buit that is simply not true. I the example you gave you reported the bullet holes and I didn't dispute them. IMHO, they just are not relevant to the questions I asked. In fact your reporting of them just clouds the issue IMHO.

      You suggest that my "... 100 want to visit the white house" as a reason for their joining the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They aren't members of the Bush campaign, like Kerry's crew is. There won't be photo ops with this anonymous 100 like there will be with Kerry and his crew. The anonymous 100 have nothing to gain beyond the defeat of Kerry.

      The simple fact is that the circumstances under which Kerry received his first two Purple Hearts is in question.

      Kerry could resolve this by simply authorizing the release of ALL of his Navy records.

      Bush has, Kerry hasn't.

      How can anyone defend this?

    • "*Both* parties have failed us miserably on that score I'm afraid. I think we need a viable third party myself: Libertarians that don't rant about drug policy all the time."

      all right DD, i'll accept your 20 yr chart without looking. i believe it's 1982 generally said to be the start, so that coincides with your statements. but i'd need more from you on just what your subjective "surging" really means. and i'd need some facts on the amount of taxes generated by that surge pre-bubble. that's pre-1998 as per what i heard about coke this morning.

      we each have our view on the other. while reagan started the bull rolling, debt kept rising throughout, no? with bush and clinton, even given the recession during bush's term, their policies led to the growth during the 90's while reducing the debt. big difference to me.

      the only thing i can grant is this question: if clinton had lowered taxes would the impact of the bubble bursting have been less? my answer, probably, although the bubble still would have burst, and even more mortgage would be placed on the future. i'm willing to pay what i figure is smaller pain now to straighten things out vs the bigger pain i and my kids will face later.

      gotta get in for a bath and get ready. blti's going to the moon today and i want to be there(lol).

      you be good

    • Rivvir:

      I think we might agree on more than we're letting on here.

      A few points to consider, though.

      When you have a chance, please glance at a 20 year chart (monthly bars) of the S&P. The big bull run started even prior to 1984. On this long term type chart 1987 and the asia contagion are mere downward blips.

      Now what's really depressing about this chart for all active trader types is that I could have dumped all my $ in the S&P500 and gone to sleep until 2000 and I would have made a mint!...but I digress...

      So I disagree completely with your remark:

      <<i don't remember the market surging prior to the flu, i believe it was doing well. i'm stating that on the chance i'm wrong, i'd have to look at the history. you can correct me, no ill will.>>

      But I wholeheartedly *agree* that Fed timing and tax policy do not act in a coordinated fashion most of the time, to our detriment. Conservatives general think that the government is too large, and taxes too oppressive and that tends to drive their thinking regardless of Fed policy.

      <<if you didn't have the consumer debt, largely made up of home mortgages at the lower rates the fed engineered, not this administration, you wouldn't have had the spending you've seen. without the spending you've seen you wouldn't have had a recovering economy>>

      Yes this is why I think that it won't work long term: at some point the consumer gets so far in debt that he must cut back spending, even if the interest rate is .001%. Until debt is dealt with meaningfully, stimulus is going to only act as a temporary boost.

      BTW this is a world problem; France's debt load is over 60% of GDP!!

      Plus all of this borrowing via our houses is going to bite us on our collective asses.


      << if you don't like it you know to whom you can complain.>>

      *Both* parties have failed us miserably on that score I'm afraid. I think we need a viable third party myself: Libertarians that don't rant about drug policy all the time.

      DD

    • "But it "ignores history" to forget the burgeoning tax revenues that also came with a surging stock market and increased consumer spending that went with it was *also* a big part of the balanced budgets of the late 90's."

      i believe it "ignores history" to recognize that was already progressing along that track prior to the late 90's. in fact, during the asian flu there was not that surging market for some period of time. through the combination of the fed and the administration, and congress, let me not forget them, the country worked through that period and came out well on the other side. which is when your bubble and surging revenues arrived.

      i don't remember the market surging prior to the flu, i believe it was doing well. i'm stating that on the chance i'm wrong, i'd have to look at the history. you can correct me, no ill will.

      your current tax cuts aren't the issue. your calling for tax cuts back in 2000 to put in liquidity, while at the same time the fed is trying to remove liquidity, is the issue. the fed is trying to remove stimulus, you, bush and cheney are saying add stimulus. add stimulus to a bubble and what do you get, a smaller bubble? illogical.

      if you didn't have the consumer debt, largely made up of home mortgages at the lower rates the fed engineered, not this administration, you wouldn't have had the spending you've seen. without the spending you've seen you wouldn't have had a recovering economy. without a recovering economy you wouldn't have seen what job growth you have seen. i.e., you couldn't have your cake, in the manner this current administration gave it to you, without paying for it in some other manner. increased mortgage debt, increased national debt, are the ways it was paid for. if you don't like it you know to whom you can complain.

      i have no idea what my last sentence was so i cannot comment.

    • Rivvir-

      Your logic is pretty tortured.

      <<not giving the bush-clinton succession credit for any of the go-go 90's is equally stupid at best. it was the combination of those adminstrations that set up the good times, not the bubble times, through fiscal responsibility. to think differently ignores history.>>

      I'm on board with Greenspan here: I thought the Paygo rules were, while flawed in some ways, pretty good. Notice I'm *not* dissing Clinton here; I think in some ways he was a decent successor to the policies of Ronald Reagan. He had the sense to know where the political winds were going and wound up going along with a number of spending and entitlement reforms (Contract with American type stuff). But it "ignores history" to forget the burgeoning tax revenues that also came with a surging stock market and increased consumer spending that went with it was *also* a big part of the balanced budgets of the late 90's. Take away trillions of dollars from the markets and tax revenues fall...not so hard to understand is it?

      <<since you have taken it to bush/cheney, the way you write i guess you believe tax cuts would have extended the bubble. it was, after all, a bubble as you acknowledge, no?>>

      Are you on drugs? Why would I even want to "extend the bubble"??? Bubbles are bubbles because they're built on unreality and they are unsustainable.

      <<so lowering taxes would have done, what? inflated it even more setting up an even louder, POP!!! time to get real.>>

      First of all, let's get some things straight. The tax cuts that are currently in effect are tiny to the point of being almost completely ineffective from the standpoint of stimulus. Most of the bigger cuts have not even been phased in.

      And that last sentence of yours I'm turning it over to a linguistic panel to see if they can find the point to it.

      The point of tax cuts is stimulus. But what is more responsible is also cutting spending and reducing government debt loads, and also finding ways to reduce consumer debt, which IMO is a major drag on the current economy. So I'm not at all happy with a number of Bush spending bills, which are of dubious value and not good for the budget either. So I'm not a thoughtless endorser of every Bush policy, and I hope you rub a few more brain cells together over your friend Kerry's proposals as well.

      But rivvir, please pull your facts together and read what you're criticizing before you summarily discard it as partisan rhetoric, because in this case it wasn't.

      DD

    • while it was not my intention to make it a commentary on bush/cheney you apparently have. so:

      not giving the bush-clinton succession credit for any of the go-go 90's is equally stupid at best. it was the combination of those adminstrations that set up the good times, not the bubble times, through fiscal responsibility. to think differently ignores history.

      since you have taken it to bush/cheney, the way you write i guess you believe tax cuts would have extended the bubble. it was, after all, a bubble as you acknowledge, no? so lowering taxes would have done, what? inflated it even more setting up an even louder, POP!!! time to get real.

    • View More Messages
 
BIOL
2.20-0.04(-1.79%)3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.