Aduro BioTech, Inc. (ADRO) -NasdaqGS
11.73 Down 0.54(4.40%) Jun 3, 4:00PM EDT
Nonsense! How did the major deal help ADRO from sinking to under $12.
Come on man, longs are way too smart to fall for your foolish jaunts.
Assumptions again. Your whole life depends on wrong assumptions- we know that you are not capable of getting it right.
Hi ursehole meathead: Those words are people like you, they go way over your head- because the head of your is like bottom- filled with farth which you keep blowing- how did that demand of silence go- not very far.
My home is US too, ursehole, I pay more taxes then your filthy mouth can ever spit hate from. I have assimilated better then your last several generations.
Stop telling me how to invest- because you are not an expert. Bluster and brain do not go together.
$7- with no capital gains paid because it is tax deferred account. When you do not have all the FACTS you make judgements which are inbrood meathead like.
Wrong- He was here when it went down from 30s to 5s. He bought a ton when it went down. He was here when it went from 5 to 7 too. He is an investor and waiting to take profits when this explodes like most LTSH.
Yes- odd, not to be here but sometimes you get tired of the same nonsense on MB. That may be odd- but is normal reaction to boredom.
It has not gone to $1 yet.
My $1 per share ( after selling at over $7 and bringing the cost to zero and adding when it started going down) with about $0.20 cents dividend does not look bad (so far they have kept that promise since 02/2014) and the share price at $5 seems like a great deal. If I get $6 I will like it better and the more above it much better.
1. Sitting on tons of cash.
2. Sofosbuvir Pricing for 12 week course:
Spain & Potugal-$27,921
Pricing power is dissipating- lots of Americans using India Buyers Club to buy these medications.
My kind are giving you a lesson of how to spell. If you do not like it, kiss your bad luck- meathead. The way you think, tells me how the inbred can not recognize itself
The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.
With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.
More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
Most Americans were not asked to make any sacrifice for the Iraq war, while its real costs were confined to the 1% of the population who fought and died there. As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.
Meathead: STOP Lying and spreadin BS
This is not an easy question - The numbers alone don't give the full picture.
Here are the numbers:
Bush, 2 terms - $4.9 trillion
Obama, 1 term - $5.3 trillion
So, if you look at it empirically, Obama has "created" more debt in his one term than Bush did in 2 terms. However, there is a lot more involved in the equation. Bush's policies might have added significantly to the debt while Obama was in office. Let's take a look and try to clear up this muddle:
While Bush's rate of rise was slower, he nearly doubled the US debt ( 86% ) compared to Obama ( 49% ).
The total federal debt in relation to the economy is reaching historically high levels — approaching levels not seen since World War II. But it can also be seen that the rise started long before Obama took office.
In fact, the upward trend began with Ronald Reagan’s fiscal 1982 budget, declined somewhat from fiscal 1997 through 2001, and resumed the upward climb with George W. Bush’s first budget in fiscal 2002 (which started Oct. 1, 2001).
And the rise accelerated as the economy slid into the worst recession since the Great Depression, starting in December 2007. As the economy shrank, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped 5 percentage points in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2007, and another 14.8 percentage points during the following year. Obama took office nearly one-third of the way into that 12-month period. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting the deficit for that fiscal year would be $1.2 trillion. It later rose to $1.4 trillion after enactment of Obama’s economic stimulus package, to be followed by back-to-back deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and $1.3 trillion again in fiscal 2011.
Another chart shows - The Democrats did a much better job of at least limiting the deficit - Bush went from about 58% GDP to 86% GDP. That is a huge jump, especially when compared with Obama''s, from 86% to 96%, a 10% jump.
Those are FACTS meathead!
I said that several months or over a year back. I agree with you. Gilead is having pricing issues with Harvoni for Hepatitis C market. But they sit on ton of cash- this is the way they need to go, to grow strongly.
For shorts to be squeezed or burned #$%$ whatever you call it) as weak hands have left and traders have taken their profits.
What do you longs think?