Mexicans are not loyal Democrats. As soon as they start making enough money that their taxes start to bother them they quickly switch over to the Republican party. Also they don't like abortion. You may not like how the laws change when they get what they want. Oh, they were not supposed to do that? That is how you lose chess when you think like that. You cannot assume that just because someone votes Democrat to get hand outs that they will do what you would like them to do. They will do what they want do and they don't like abortion.
It will eventually be that low but not in one month. I make most of my money shorting this stock. I love this stock. I hope they never kill it.
I said I was speculating because I was not sure as to why AGNC was acting as it was. But the fact is that when the market volatility goes up AGNC rises while everything else is declining. If you have a different explanation as to why AGNC has been acting like a contrarian play I would be glad to hear it.
I have owned GE on and off and its 3.4% dividend compares well against other dividend yields of companies not in the mREIT sector. And I would consider them lower risk. And the fact that their stock price appreciation has been averaging 12.5% a year makes it a better investment than many mREITs. That is a total return of 15.9% without the threat of an industry crash when interest rates start to rise. However even the likes of GE will not go unscathed in a rising interest rate environment. Valuation purest would claim that GE is a little over valued but I would say that it is not so over valued to scare off most.
I'm going to speculate that AGNC has become a safe haven for those fleeing high market volatility and when volatility goes down again they feel confident to buy back in and sell AGNC to get some dry powder. This may not be exactly what is happening but what ever is happening it is having the same effect as if this was what was happening so it doesn't matter. The point is that whenever the over all market volatility increases you can go long AGNC and short it when volatility decreases and make some money in the process. I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble though. I suspect that one can find easier ways to make money given this same awareness of market conditions.
Someone must have offered him a basement with internet access to crash in. I was hoping that daily trips to the library to use their computers would be too bothersome eventually but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Someone must have really messed with him at one point in time for which he is trying to achieve some form of restitution. For the pain and disrespect that he has suffered in the past he will make the world pay and it readily seems he is willing to go as far as is necessary to claim absolute victory. At which time he can proudly glare down on a cowering message board and see that these unworthy beings have been put in their place once and for all. That will be right before his suicide vest explodes which will be the ultimate insult to the unworthy ones. And victory will be his and ever lasing.
It was nice of FDR to not rename it after himself since he oversaw most of its construction after Hoover was defeated. Also Mt Rushmore was built in the 1930s and FDRs face was not included either. Must have been an oversight. It is probably a good thing too or someone might have stuck a stick of dynamite in his mouth and that might have caused damage to the other sculptures. We would not want that. Maybe it wasn't an oversight now that I think about it.
I once knew a guy who married a nut case. Eventually they divorced. One day she shows up in front of his house and starts to yell to anyone who can hear her in the neighborhood what she did not like about her ex husband and she went on for hours. He finally called the police and complained about the noise she was making and they came and took her way. She was yelling as they shoved her head into the back of the police car. She never came back and he doesn't know what came of her because he didn't care to know.
For some reason you remind me of her. I can't imagine why.
Personally I had never had the opportunity to witness first hand highly unstable people like that. But now I feel like I have. Maybe you can say that I was sheltered from the crazies. I guess one needs these experiences to comprehend all that is out there. Maybe I should thank you for the opportunity.
Maybe I should be more thoughtful as someone might have stolen your shopping cart of taken the seat you normally sit at when using the library computers. I guess that was pretty inconsiderate of me. I will try to feel more compassion for you in the future.
Do you know what the PEG ratio means? It is a valuation metric. If you don't then you should learn about it.
I think you will need creditable witnesses. You might call and ask them first because you can do most anything on photo shop. I could use photo shop to prove that I was the first person to fly from NY to LA by flapping my arms and it would look very real.
Debt to GDP is what matters because it normalizes for both inflation and the size of the economy. Also government spending as a percent of GDP is a useful measure. And the federal deficit as a percent of government revenues is useful.
Go on the net and look for charts showing this and you won't find anything that supports what you just said.
Go to the Bureau of labor statistics and go to their inflation calculator. Type in 1984 and 2009, the years Reagan’s budget deficits and Obama’s and inflation has gone up by a factor of two. So if you divided Obama's largest deficits by two you still get numbers that are much larger than anything during Reagan’s term.
In the last 50 years are so we have averaged government spending of 19% of GDP. Right now it is 22% of GDP. During Reagan it averaged about 20.5%. During Clinton and Bush it was about 19%.
The highest deficit as a percent of government revenues was 35% under Reagan. Under Obama it was 65% of revenues.
The reason why liberals believe what they believe is because they don't even question whether what they believe is true or not, they simply believe it because they want to. But most of what they say contradicts facts that one can get with 5 minutes of research on the web. So there is no reason to be ignorant because it is almost effortless to be informed. Now day’s people are ignorant by choice.
I can only imagine that this mindset comes about because it would be very tiring to look for facts to support a flawed concept when all you can find are facts that support the opposite. So you give up out of exhaustion and then only say what you want to be true hoping that other people will believe you. The problem with this is that in today’s information society that is getting harder and harder to do. Of course you can always influence the mindless, if that is what you are into.
The prosperity after WWII was all related to the war. First the war jump started our industrial base and second most of the industrial base of Europe and Japan was demolished. This left us as a sole source for many modern manufactured products. We became an exporter to the rest of the world and this created more demand for our products than our own population would have created on its own. So not only were there plenty of customers for our products but there were plenty of jobs for people willing to make these products.
Under such conditions you were not taking as large of a risk to start a new business because the demand was almost guaranteed as long as you were not trying to make something that no one wanted for a price no one was willing to pay.
Today the opposite is true. We are an net importer and thus our economy is much more fragile. Thus we are more sensitive to the financial burden caused by excessive debt. We are less able to rectify a situation like this because we are in a weaker economic position given the competition from abroad. And the deeper we go into debt the harder it gets to fix it without hyper inflation. And only the wealthy will understand how to survive hyper inflation unscathed. The less informed middle class will take the brunt of it. In the end these economic policies will have increased the gap between rich and poor. Everything you do not want to happen is exactly what will happen.
The people that are no longer looking for jobs or the people that are working for half of what they used to make are not counted as being unemployed. How convenient. This sure helps Obama make it look he is doing a good job. But ask these people that I refer to if they think he is doing a good job. Those are the people who really matter because they are the ones who are suffering under Obama. You can talk about sugar coated unemployment numbers until you are blue in the face but the fact is that most people don't feel like the employment situation in the US is good. Most people who have a job today wonder if they could find another if they were laid off. There was never a time that I can remember before Obama that I ever felt that way. Job mobility now days is close to zero.
That may be your idea of a good employment environment but it not mine. Sorry, but my standards are much higher than yours. For my standards to be met people graduating from college should be able to find a job if they have a degree that is associated with a well defined career path. That is not the case today. You have people with computer science degrees taking IT jobs who are thus crowding out the people graduating with IT degrees. This is the case in many fields. You call that acceptable? Then you are easy to please.
It doesn't mean anything when you are not able to point out exactly what I said that was incorrect and why? If you want to sound convincing you need to get into specifics. Otherwise you are just a propagandist with an agenda that does not align well with the truth. Facts can be a powerful ally when they are on your side. But if they are not then you surely do not want to address them. So I fully understand your reluctance.
The truth is the enemy of the propagandist whose cause is to convince others to do something that is probably not in their best interest but is in the interest of the propagandist instead. Lenin understood this well. That is why he did not waste time with the facts and stuck to slogans instead and if that did not work intimidation tactics and if that did not work you simply disappeared. Unfortunately for the modern day liberal making people disappear is no longer an option available to them. You have to play nice kind of. As it is clear to most that intimidation is still a coveted and well used tool of the liberal. As can by your use of words usually used by the dregs of society. Your use of language would not be appropriate in mixed company but that is no surprise. I would expect no better. You are truly a liberal by association.
Yes, Obama has really made things so much better than before. Tell that to the people who have given up looking for a job.
But in a sense you are right. Typically when the Democrats have been in the mode of runaway spending the impact on the economy of curbing this spending is to have a recession until it works its self through. Everyone knows this. But everyone also knows it is necessary to eventually get out of such a spend with abandon mode and the Republicans are the only ones that can do this and not get fired for doing it because that is what the people who voted for them want them to do.
The alternative is to go deeper and deeper into debt until the interest payments are such a large percentage of the budget that there is little money left to pay for much of anything else and then the only way to get out of this hole is to opt for hyper inflation to wipe out the government dept which also wipes out the savings accounts of retirees. That may work for you but it doesn't work for me.
I'm right about this. There is no free lunch. Someone has to pay pay somehow and the rich are always smart enough to make sure that it is not them. Try as you may but it is always the middle class that gets the shaft for these policies.
If you make more than $47k a year you are not on the benefiting side of these spend with abandon policies. So if that is the case one might ask one's self if you think of yourself as a philanthropist because you may as well be.
It would be kind of hard to conclude that balancing the budget was the issue when he had raised taxes on the wealthy from 25% to 63% in 1933 and then from 63% to 79% in 1936. It went higher from there until it reached 91%. That pretty much masks out the effects of most everything else.
Who would be dumb enough to invest in a new business if all you could keep from your profits was a small fraction of them? When the government more or less told the wealthy that if you start a new business we will take most everything away from you, it pretty much killed new investment altogether. The only reason the war worked to correct this is because making war materials is a form of investment. It is not a giveaway. People actually have to work and industries are created. The special projects that FDR implemented didn't work because once they were over there was no factory still remaining ready to make other stuff. At the end of the project everyone went home and nothing remained.