PDA

View Full Version : From a good source...



Uncle Bill
04-25-2011, 11:53 AM
...comes a letter to the POTUS by a financial guru I happen to subscribe to. Thought some of you might be interested in his views of our current state of affairs in this country.

UB

Weekend EditionStansberry to Obama: 'We simply can't afford this nonsense anymore…' Saturday, April 23, 2011
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/secure/images/icon.gif In honor of Monday's national Tax Day, I wrote the following letter to Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Please feel free to pass this around if you like it…

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to the ashbin of society.

With the speech you gave last week, you have firmly and permanently put yourself in the same garbage bag as all the other communists and socialists of the 20th century.

Your speech sounded like the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy square in Moscow 100 years ago.

The promises you made, Mr. President, about the government giving people things they can't provide for themselves – a better income, reliable health care, an advanced education, cheaper mortgages, a "shiny, happy" life – have been made time and time again… sometimes by speakers even better than you.

And they have always been lies.

While the government can demand obedience (and taxes), it can't mandate dedication, creativity, or innovation. The fact is, the government itself is nothing more (or less) than the organized ambitions of the people.

Promising something to the people that they don't already have is a logical absurdity. And therein lies the timeless flaw of all collectivist theory: Governments cannot deliver benefits to the people that the people cannot deliver to themselves.

To demonstrate this truth, consider this example… Governments cannot simply mandate higher tax revenue. Any substantial increase to tax rates will reduce total collections, an economic phenomenon known as the "Laffer Curve."

This has been proven countless times in our country and many others. Any sensible person will immediately understand why. Taxes are a disincentive. The higher the marginal rate of tax, the more powerful its impact.

That's why, over many decades (and many different tax structures), U.S. tax revenues have been remarkably stable at around 20% of GDP. That's why, as you surely know, Mr. President, changing the tax code will not result in increased tax revenue.

Taxing only the rich simply doesn't work. It never has. And it never will. To increase the government's revenues, we must first increase the size of the economy. The government cannot tax what the economy doesn't produce.

In another time, most Americans might have simply ignored your speech as the ignorant remarks of yet another handsome, Ivy League-educated, dilettante president. But at this point in our history, my bet is people are going to take you far more seriously than you expect. In fact, I think you're going to get what you deserve – the trash heap. Why will Americans turn on you so rapidly and so completely?

Two things have changed – forever – about American politics.

The first is the media and access to critical information. It's no longer possible for a president's administration to control what people read, see, and think by simply managing the evening news broadcasts.

Thus, all your lies are now exposed almost instantly and broadcast to millions of people via websites and services like the Drudge Report, Twitter, and Facebook. Socialism cannot possibly survive over any long period of time in a society with a free media – because socialism is based on a lie. Facebook means the "half-life" of socialism is now weeks instead of years.

Even mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal have called you a liar recently. They have no choice. Your lies were broadcast to the entire world long before their op-ed pieces appeared.

Your advisors told you none of these "bloggers" mattered. All you had to do was promise more benefits to more voters and then force fewer voters to pay for it all. I'm sure you did the political calculus… You believed your power to bribe and bamboozle the poor and the ignorant was stronger than the resentment you'd engender among the "rich." And I must admit… since at least World War II, that's been a safe bet in American politics.

But you forgot one critical factor: We simply can't afford this nonsense anymore…

Immediately after your speech, the price of silver went from $39 to a new high above $42. Gold went up, too.

These are signs, Mr. President, that the world is losing confidence in our currency. If our foreign creditors were to call in our debts, America would suffer an economic cataclysm unlike anything we've ever seen in our entire history.

Americans now owe a total of $56 trillion. Without the Fed's money-printing, it's unlikely we could afford even the interest on these existing debts… much less the $1.5 trillion or more in debt you continue to rack up year after year by promising benefits we haven't earned.

Sooner or later, our foreign creditors are going to decide our money-printing amounts to a default, and they will stop buying our bonds. On that day, everyone who trusts you, everyone who believes in your lies, will be wiped out.

But that won't be as many people as you expect.

Almost every American knows in his heart what made this country great for the 200 years between 1776 and 1976. It wasn't the lies of our presidents. It wasn't our ability to print money and rip off our Chinese creditors. It wasn't the modern crybaby mentality of our school system or our unions. It wasn't the baby boomer's dream of a 40-year retirement with free prescription drugs.

And it sure as hell wasn't a suave, made-for-TV version of Karl Marx promising everything to everyone, but with no way to pay for it.

No. What built America was her people's unwavering faith that they were free to enjoy the rewards of their accomplishments.

As our country tumbles into bankruptcy and crisis, the people are going to want their prosperity back, Mr. President. And deep down, they all know… even your most fervent supporters know… you don't have the goods. You don't have the foggiest idea of how to deliver prosperity to America because, really, you don't understand what America is all about.

Regards,

Porter Stansberry

Goose
04-25-2011, 12:43 PM
Stansberry better get ready for an audit:)

Buzz
04-25-2011, 02:13 PM
Stansberry better get ready for an audit:)

It wouldn't be the first time...




PORTER STANSBERRY & PIRATE INVESTOR SCAM IS NAILED IN SEC INVESTMENT FRAUD LAWSUIT

U. S. JUDGE FINES AGORA SUBSIDIARY AND EDITOR $1.5 M FOR SECURITIES FRAUD

An investment newsletter’s publisher and its editor have been hit with $1.5 million in financial penalties after a U. S. federal judge determined they defrauded their own subscribers in a securities scam.

Judgment in favor of the Securities Exchange Commission and against Maryland-based Pirate Investor LLC, now called Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, LLC, and Frank Porter Stansberry was issued at the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland on August 1, 2007 – 28 months after the completion of a bench trial. The penalty comprises disgorgement of $1.3 million in profits and interest from the fraudulent activity, for which Pirate Investor and Stansberry are jointly and severally liable, plus a fine of $120,000 against each defendant.

http://briandeer.com/vaxgen/stansberry-fraud.htm

cotts135
04-25-2011, 07:40 PM
...comes a letter to the POTUS by a financial guru I happen to subscribe to. Thought some of you might be interested in his views of our current state of affairs in this country.

UB



Financial guru?????????? Wow, I googled his name and like the 3rd entry on the page had "Porter Stansberry scam" Seems he had some problems in 2007.
About his comments on the Laffer Curve, they don't seem to jive very well with other economists. Now the premise of the Laffer curve does have some validity but as stated by Mr Stansberry in this article is very misleading. From what I could tell most economists think that the T point in the curve is around 60-70% tax rate, Nowhere near where we are today. Another premise of the curve is that if tax rates are lowered and revenues go up than the rates are to high but if revenues decline than the rates need to go higher.
Now if we take the word of some important Conservatives working in the Bush administration we will find almost an unamious opinion that Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."


[B]Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.


[B]Bernanke: "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves." In his April 27, 2006, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke asserted "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves," adding that "to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues"

Time to follow someone else.

Gerry Clinchy
04-25-2011, 08:08 PM
Not so sure I want to put a lot of stock in Bernacke ... remember, the fella whose worried about deflation ... when the cost of everything is increasing by leaps and bounds.

JDogger
04-25-2011, 08:42 PM
Not so sure I want to put a lot of stock in Bernacke ... remember, the fella whose worried about deflation ... when the cost of everything is increasing by leaps and bounds.

Not so sure I want to put a lot of stock in Bernanke either. The question arises however, why would I put stock in the advise of a dubious internet financial guru when by my own admission I no longer play that game? JD

"me gold, me gold", Says the pirate captain, played by Walter Mathau in Polanski's 'Pirates'.

If you've never seen it. Find it. JD

Losthwy
04-25-2011, 09:09 PM
"They say you have to keep those tax cuts, even on the very wealthy, because that is what energizes business and capitalism," anchor Amanpour said.

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”- Warren Buffet

BonMallari
04-25-2011, 09:31 PM
"They say you have to keep those tax cuts, even on the very wealthy, because that is what energizes business and capitalism," anchor Amanpour said.

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”- Warren Buffet

well what is your solution ? surely it isnt trickle UP economics...the people of NOLA showed that didnt work (no offense to you Franco), but look what they did with the FEMA funds,they spent them on TV's,alcohol and even at strip clubs..look at the stimulus checks did that help, of course it didnt at least not long term, it was a quick fix feel good band aid on a a wound that needed a tourniquet...giving the lower economic tier additional funds will only result in spending way beyond their means or borrowing a debt that they have no chance of repaying

as for Porter Stansberry, he is the financial guru that is often quoted in the Dick Morris newsletters...at least in the ones that I receive..I pay attention to what Mr Morris has to say,not so much on what Mr Stansberry has to say...

1tulip
04-26-2011, 01:30 AM
You know... Mr. Buffet can donate as much money to the federal government as he wants. He's a very rich guy, but since when did that make him my representative? (For that matter, rich guys like Trump, Romney, and Bloomberg don't represent me either.)

Mr. Obama qualifies for the "millionaire tax" because he made some money off his books. That's fine. More power to him. But if he's so opposed to the Bush tax cuts, why did he only pay 26% of his income in taxes? Why does he itemize? Shouldn't he be leading this "shared sacrifice" deal he wants to impose on the rest of us. Why does he use "loopholes" to reduce his tax liability like all the other millionaires? My husband and I work our butts off to make (cumulatively) less than 20% of what Mr. Obama made last year. We are self-employed (i.e., small business people) and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes. We paid a considerably higher % of our income in taxes than our President did and I don't want any more preaching from him or any other rich guy.

These people are such hypocrites.

Buzz
04-26-2011, 10:23 AM
well what is your solution ? surely it isnt trickle UP economics...

My grandfather on my dad's side was an extremely successful small businessman. He had a firm belief that if folks couldn't afford to come spend money, he wasn't going to do very well. He had a saying, "all the money goes to the top. Grab as much of it as you can while it's on the way."

Losthwy
04-26-2011, 11:27 AM
well what is your solution ?

That is the 14 trillion dollar question. Letting the tax cuts sunset on those making over 250K is one. The another is cutting the fat out of the defense budget. We have bases in around 150 countries, the total of overseas bases is so enormous there doesn't seem be an exact figure. But it seems to be between 700-1000 maybe more. It includes a ski center in the Bavarian Alps and 243 golf courses. And there's the all the domestic bases. Getting any domestic base shutdown is a battle in itself. All senators and rep. want to close bases, but none want the one in their district to close. The US maintains 11 carrier groups. Any idea what it takes to build and maintain one carrier group for a year? Pork rules and all parties feed on it. Dwight Eisenhower warned us.

road kill
04-26-2011, 11:49 AM
That is the 14 trillion dollar question. Letting the tax cuts sunset on those making over 250K is one.How much revenue would that generate? The another is cutting the fat out of the defense budget. We have bases in around 150 countries, the total of overseas bases is so enormous there doesn't seem be an exact figure. But it seems to be between 700-1000 maybe more. It includes a ski center in the Bavarian Alps and 243 golf courses. And there's the all the domestic bases. Getting any domestic base shutdown is a battle in itself. All senators and rep. want to close bases, but none want the one in their district to close. The US maintains 11 carrier groups. Any idea what it takes to build and maintain one carrier group for a year? Pork rules and all parties feed on it. Dwight Eisenhower warned us.
How much revenue would that generate?

RK