One can only sigh at the ignorance and ugly pettiness of some people.
You obviously no NOTHING about working in the film industry. I wish i could invite some of my grip friends to show you just who
the freeloader really is. I'm glad i embarassed you into limiting your posting in the day. lmfao.
Your sounding more and more like John everyday. Are you sure your not him?
Wouldnt surprise me.
You started off here 2 years ago saying you were a centrist and have ended up sounding like glenn beck. I quess you couldnt hide your true feelings anymore.
You sound like a "hater" to me. Any objective person would agree.
You are clearly have a right wing perspective. Just be honest about it. Thats all.
Your hatred is misplaced but have at it.
Just a point of curiousity. Didnt you once say your wife was a liberal?
The defintion of a liar is some one you support continuosly
His name is Mr. Schiff and he denies he has EVER made a wrong prediction. Clearly that is a bald face lie.
Since MR. SIriuslyinlovewithMr.Schiff want to turn this into a Mr. schiff debate have at it. Instead of being embarassed he actually seems to want to embrace what i have said all along about his passion for him. Sorry to do this to but he seem to be a glutton for punishment.
“...I Don't Think I've Been Wrong on Anything” THIS IS A PETER SCHIFF QUOTE AS I SAID EARLIER. NOT ONLY DOES HE GET SO MANY OF HIS ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS WRONG BUT HE HAS NEVER ADMITTED ANY OF HIS WILDLY WRONG PREDICTIONS. FACTS DONT LIE and he is clearly a LIAR.
May 14, 2010
Update May 18, 2010: I periodically get emails from Schiff disciples asking what do I think NOW about his great advice. Apparently many of these folks don't follow the performance of investments they aren't currently using because these folks seem to think that gold has beenhttp://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090213 the place to be no matter what happens. One recent and good question was about Hartman and how his Schiff portfolio is doing "these days." The questioner seemed to be of the belief that Hartman would be much happier now with Schiff's picks to which I say, only if he is an ostrich with his head in the sand!
Since I interviewed Jason Hartman (see previous update below) in February, 2009, gold (Schiff's favorite investment for the supposed coming end of the U.S. dollar) was at about $1,000 per ounce. 15 months later now, gold is at about $1,200 an ounce, so it's up 20 percent since I spoke with Hartman. By contrast, U.S. stocks have rocketed higher and have had one of the best rallies ever. U.S. stocks, which Schiff said to shun, are up 70+ percent. So, stockpiling gold and staying out of stocks hasn't work so well for Schiff.
Schiff also said, "At a minimum, the dollar will lose another 40 to 50 percent of its value." Wrong, wrong again on this one! I wrote in December, 2009 about how Schiff and a plethora of pundits were predicting the demise of the U.S. dollar in my piece, An Examination of the "Dire Circumstance" of the U.S. Dollar. The dollar is almost exactly where it was in early 2009! And, funny how the Euro crisis is now center-stage and folks are no longer talking about how weak the U.S. dollar is anymore.
Update February 23, 2009: I just got off the phone from doing a radio interview with Jason Hartman for his real estate and financial show. Early on, he asked me about various gurus and Peter Schiff's name quickly came up. Schiff he said had been a guest on his program in the past. Without missing a beat, Mr. Hartman proceeded to tell me how he invested $200,000 through Schiff's firm and now had just half of that left!
During the sharp and volatile stock market slide of 2008-09, Peter Schiff, who heads the brokerage firm, Euro Pacific Capital based in Darien, CT with five branch offices in California, Florida and Arizona, has frequently been on television, especially the cable channels including CNBC. Along with a growing chorus of others such as Nouriel Roubini, Barry Ritholtz, and Gary Shilling, Schiff is one of those guys now saying "I told you so" in reference to the recent economic and financial market problems.
Schiff's quote used for the headline of this article ("The reality is I don't think I've been wrong on anything") comes from an interview U.S. News & World Reports magazine did with Schiff in their May 30, 2008 issue. (In that piece, Schiff made a number of predictions I will get to in a moment.) The quote came from comments he made when discussing the supposed accuracy of his predictions over the past decade.
Peter Schiff began his career in the financial services world as a stockbroker, doing what I thought I wanted to do when I grew up. (I lost interest in the job once I learned about selling and working on commission). My dad used to take me to visit his broker at Merrill Lynch. Mind you, my dad was no high roller but he had begun handling some investments when he was laid off from his job as a mechanical engineer during the severe recession of 1973-74.
In watching and reading his interviews and in speaking with Schiff myself on February 12, 2009, I am struck by the forcefulness and certainty of his views and predictions. He doesn't hedge and as he did in the U.S News interview, he told me, "Pretty much everything is happening as I scripted it to happen with minor exceptions..."
When I asked Schiff what training and experiences he had to form his economic views and opinions, I asked if he was an economist or had any economics training. "I think I know more about economics than anyone with the title and I know more than anyone in government," he boasted, adding, "These other guys are witch doctors and I'm the real doctor."
As for when he developed his economic genius, Schiff told me, "I've always known this much -ever since I was a kid and my dad wrote a book called the Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You, I understood capitalism and how it works. I read Ayn Rand and I read some of the Keynesian economics stuff and could see why those economists were all wrong."
Schiff's father, Irwin Schiff, is a long-term tax protestor who has written many books about the supposed illegality of the U.S. income tax system. Unfortunately the senior Irwin didn't read the section in my Taxes for Dummies about what happens to folks who refuse to pay their income taxes because they don't believe in the validity of our nation's tax laws. Sadly, Irwin Schiff, now in his 80s, has been convicted of numerous federal income tax crimes and is currently serving another lengthy prison term.
Interestingly, in the marketing copy for Irwin Schiff's book, The Biggest Con, it says of the book, "It will convince you that most American ‘economists' don't know what they are talking about - which is why this country is in such deep economic and financial trouble. It provides irrefutable proof of how the federal government has been continually undermining the American economy and forcing a lower standard of living on us all." This sounds a lot like the recent statements of his son Peter yet the father's book was published back in 1977! (You know the expression about the apple not falling far from the tree...)
Before I get to Peter Schiff's more recent predictions, I was able to track down some of his older ones. I always enjoy doing this for prognosticators like Schiff who claim as he did to U.S. News last year that, "The reality is I don't think I've been wrong on anything," in reference to his predictions over the past decade. Let's take a look at that bold claim.
The Same Old Song
Thanks to the wonders of video technology, we have an accurate record of Schiff's views from this 2002 television interview. What is notable here is that in this 2002 interview, Schiff was saying nearly the same exact things that he did during 2008 and in his recent interview with me.
At the time of this 2002 interview, the U.S. stock market had already suffered steep losses and the economy was in recession. The highlights of Schiff's predictions: he saw substantial downside over the next couple of years for the stock market. He predicted that the Dow, which was around 10,000 at the time, would plummet to between 2,000 and 4,000 and he even went so far as to say that the Dow might fall below 2,000. He expected the NASDAQ to drop to 500 from its then level of 1,700. He also said that the dollar was going to fall sharply and interest rates were going to go through the roof accompanied by dramatic inflation.
On all of these counts, Schiff wasn't just wrong but ended up being hugely wrong.
Now, fast forward to May 30, 2008 and the U.S. News article, "Permabear Peter Schiff's Worst-Case Scenario." Let's review some of the key predictions he made in that piece As for his investing predictions he said, "I'm getting my clients' money outside of the United States as fast as they can send it to me...You've got to own resources and energy...I've been buying gold, silver, industrial metals, and all kinds of stocks. My main theme is the global economy will survive and the U.S. economy is a disaster. Everything is about how you benefit from the increased purchasing power and rising standard of living in the rest of the world."
This was wrong as commodity prices have plunged since this interview (see graph below). Foreign stocks actually declined more in 2008 than did U.S. stocks so Schiff was wrong on that count too.
When asked, "Why don't you think soaring oil, grains, or commodities prices are the next bubble?" Schiff replied:
"These prices do not constitute bubbles. They simply constitute the repricing of goods to reflect the diminished value of our money. The way you can tell there's not a bubble is that these markets are clearing. People are buying food and eating it. They're buying gasoline and using it. Speculators aren't buying gasoline and warehousing it in big facilities because they think the price is going to go up." Schiff went on to say,
"Gold is going to be $1,200 to $1,500 by the end of the year."
"Oil prices had a pretty big run and might not make more headway by the end of the year. But we could see $150 to $200 next year."
"At a minimum, the dollar will lose another 40 to 50 percent of its value."
"You are clearly have a right wing perspective. Just be honest about it. Thats all.
Your hatred is misplaced but have at it.
Just a point of curiousity. Didnt you once say your wife was a liberal?"
No, my wife is a democrat. She was going to vote for Hillary, but when she lost, her vote was going to McCain, but when he partnered with that idiot Sarah Palin, her vote went to Obama, I think.
Right wing perspective? Calling Palin an idiot? Believing that two people in love should be able to marry? Proposing exempt status on the lowest income earners? Thinking that marijuana should be legalized? Finding it odd that social security tax ends at something like $106,000 of earnings? Recognizing that abortion is acceptable in society? And did I add that I'm agnostic and loathe the Christian / evangelical right? That's wicked right wing stuff there Lloyd. Very "extreme".
I challenge you to come off on any issue of the liberal left. Hell, you won't even recognize that the oil and gas industry is hiring.
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 03-16-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Obama a failure, in every way possible
One does not have to be a Tea Party specialist or have attended one of their rallies to be a proud American, as I am, a distinguished twice-wounded combat veteran Marine of the Vietnam War.
Having read the letters of Barbara Skokan, Anthony Szymanski, I suggest you reread her letter concerning the 1900s. You should read it in the proper context and not with the rose-colored glasses of a rabid liberal.
In regard to the school lunch box inspection, people will choose the foods they eat as personal choice, e.g. diverse ethnic and regional backgrounds which play a big part in what individuals prefer to consume. Obama does want control of every facet of American life just as Castro, Chavez, Mao Tse Tung, his big idol, and even Joseph Stalin. If this isn’t a major branch of the Socialist tree that has its roots in Marxism, then what is?
As far as his infringement on the Catholic Church in an attempt to force them to provide birth control paid by offerings of parishioners, it is an absolute violation of their religious beliefs. By the way, I am a Baptist, not a Catholic. Anthony, have you not read the papers, watched TV, or listened to the radio news? All this talk is nothing but a smoke screen or truly veiled façade to hide his failing economic practice.
Yes, he did succeed in everything that he attempted much to the detriment of the American people. Stimulus packages were not to stimulate the economy but were to siphon off money for the bonuses of executives in failing businesses. Since when does failure deserve a bonus? What else did he do? His ObamaCare will bankrupt America and was passed with bribes, threats, arm twisting and backroom deals. Nancy Pelosi: “Let’s pass it so we can see what’s in it.” If that isn’t buying a pig in a poke, what is?
He inserted government control over the auto industry as a true diehard Socialist leader would. Again, all this to the detriment of the American people.
How can Barbara Skokan be in the one percent when Obama’s approval ratings are below 50 percent? Any Republican candidate has higher and ethical standards than Obama, who has had only a very brief term in the Senate. Before that he was a ward healer and community activist, which means why work when you can get over on the system?
It took his wife, Michelle Obama, decades before she would proclaim she was proud to be an American — only after Barack got into office. Was she the best and brightest or was she one of those who met an affirmative action quota?
The tools he has given us are food stamps, welfare, government handouts and dependency on big government. Is this something we can hold onto, to make our children secure for the future? Whatever happened to independent self-sufficiency when one strives to be better doing it themselves?
Finish it: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/artic...y-way-possible
Wrong thread lol, but fitting none the less.
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 03-22-2012 at 11:32 AM.
Senate panel considers Obama’s reorganization plan
By Joe Davidson, Published: March 21
With all the talk about duplication, consolidation and reorganization, Wednesday’s Senate hearing could have been a planning session for a movement of small-government zealots.
In a way, it was.
Participants on all sides of the issue at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee session supported cutting government. How to get there is the issue.
One way, favored by President Obama, is the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012, which would increase his power to reorganize government.
“This proposal reinstates the government reorganization authority that past presidents relied on from 1932 to 1984,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who introduced the bill along with Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.).
“Any plan a president proposes under this legislation must decrease the number of executive agencies and result in cost savings,” Lieberman said. “Such presidential reorganization proposals would be put on a fast track through Congress, with no amendments or filibusters permitted if this legislation as introduced is adopted.”
Daniel Werfel, controller in the Office of Federal Financial Management, told the panel that “changing the way Washington works is a priority for the president.” He said the legislation would permit the president to submit a reorganization proposal if it would “reduce the overall number of agencies or achieve cost savings.”
The first use of the fast-track authority, Werfel said, “would consolidate six agencies into one, integrating the Department of Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.”
Programs from those agencies would be consolidated into four divisions: small business; trade and investment; technology and innovation; and statistics.
“This consolidation would serve the American people more efficiently and effectively while saving $3 billion over 10 years by cutting waste; eliminating duplication, overlap and unnecessary overhead costs; and reducing the size of Government,” Werfel said in his testimony.
Any reduction in the workforce, he added in an interview, would come through attrition.
To demonstrate how confusing government duplication can be, the top Republican on the committee, Sen. Susan M. Collins (Maine), displayed a bewildering chart, based on Government Accountability Office data, showing 11 agencies and their 94 green building initiatives.
“Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a worthwhile goal, but surely, overlapping and duplicative programs are not the best way to achieve that goal,” she said. “There is no consistent oversight, there is no accountability, and it is a virtual certainty that there are millions and millions of dollars wasted.”
Collins indicated no problem with the president’s objectives, but she’s not sold on giving the White House more power at the expense of the legislative branch.
“While I understand that Congress is sometimes an obstacle to speedy reform, it is important that, in considering ways to expedite the process, we do not undermine Congress’s ability to carefully consider and amend legislation,” she said. “That is a mistake.”
Moira K. Mack, an Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman, said the president “intends to treat Congress as a full partner in this effort to consolidate and reform government.”
In fact, Congress would have power under the fast-track authority even if it did nothing. Under Obama’s plan, a reorganization proposal would fail if Congress did not vote on it within a certain 90-day period. The authority of previous presidents generally allowed reorganization proposals to take effect automatically unless nixed by either chamber of Congress.
While critical, Collins’s remarks had a less partisan tone than is frequently heard on Capitol Hill and were in keeping with the bipartisan approach Lieberman and Collins foster in the committee.
The bipartisan support Obama would like to see for the legislation was exemplified by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “I’m fully supporting the president’s idea,” he said. “I’m going to help on this bill. It’s got to be cleaned up some, but I’m going to help.”
He was much less pleased, however, with Werfel’s explanation on the inability of agencies, except Education, to fully list all of their programs. Werfel said that’s more difficult than it seems, in part because defining a particular activity as one program or multiple programs can be complicated.
“If that’s the fact, we’re in a whole lot more trouble,” Coburn said. “What you’re saying is we can’t tell you what we’re doing today.” If there’s a problem with defining an activity, he suggested, simply footnote it.
“If you can’t measure what you’re doing,” he added, “you can’t manage it.”
Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at wapo.st/JoeDavidson. Follow the Federal Diary on Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP
Just part of an article that discusses the progression of crazy right wing theories about President Obama. Yes, including the ones about President Obama being a socialist, and or marxist. Wackjobs.
"As Richard Hofstadter pointed out in his classic 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” crazy conspiracy theories have been an American tradition ever since clergymen began warning that Thomas Jefferson was an agent of the Bavarian Illuminati. But it’s one thing to have a paranoid fringe playing a marginal role in a nation’s political life; it’s something quite different when that fringe takes over a whole party, to the point where candidates must share, or pretend to share, that fringe’s paranoia to receive the party’s presidential nod.
And it’s not just gas prices, of course. In fact, the conspiracy theories are proliferating so fast it’s hard to keep up. Thus, large numbers of Republicans — and we’re talking about important political figures, not random supporters — firmly believe that global warming is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, not one of whom has broken the code of omertà. Meanwhile, others are attributing the recent improvement in economic news to a dastardly plot to withhold stimulus funds, releasing them just before the 2012 election. And let’s not even get into health reform.
Why is this happening? At least part of the answer must lie in the way right-wing media create an alternate reality. For example, did you hear about how the cost of Obamacare just doubled? It didn’t, but millions of Fox-viewers and Rush-listeners believe that it did. Naturally, people who constantly hear about the evil that liberals do are ready and willing to believe that everything bad is the result of a dastardly liberal plot. And these are the people who vote in Republican primaries.
But what about the broader electorate?
If and when he wins the nomination, Mr. Romney will try, as a hapless adviser put it, to shake his Etch A Sketch — that is, to erase the record of his pandering to the crazy right and convince voters that he’s actually a moderate. And maybe he can pull it off.
But let’s hope that he can’t, because the kind of pandering he has engaged in during his quest for the nomination matters. Whatever Mr. Romney may personally believe, the fact is that by endorsing the right’s paranoid fantasies, he is helping to further a dangerous trend in America’s political life. And he should be held accountable for his actions."