CPAPtalk.com

Well, I missed quite a bit here, but no time to read through it today.

But I did listen to the message from Maxine: http://www.breitbart.tv/maxine-waters-t ... Q.facebook

Marxine Waters can go straight to hell. She doesnt realize she just said America can go straight to hell, or, if she does she is scared to death of the Tea Party. And she should be. They
ALL should be. The Tea Party is just getting started, just coming of age, and just coming for the likes of her. Real Americans will take their country back from Marxist Communist infilTRAITORS!! Tea Party Patriots are sick and tired of the likes of her using race and phony environmental causes to take over our businesses, our health care, our food and water sources, and our freedom!! Pass the word, VOTE OUT ALL PROGRESIVE SIMPATHIZERS and Marxists and Communists race baiting corrupt whores in Washington! Do it or lose your American way of life and the ultimate standard of living that goes with it and learn to live in squalor,with filth, hunger thirst, sick, tired, and slaves to their new world order.

So Well wrote: I did listen to the message from Maxine: http://www.breitbart.tv/maxine-waters-t ... Q.facebook

um, no thanks.

She's never said anything intelligent before, so no use me wasting my time to hear more of the same...

Wow!, 12% unemployment in California! You would think with all of the progressive liberals that run that State, with their love for big government and sky high taxes, they would have no unemployment and a great big State revenue surplus! (sarcasm off)

Right Kempo, did you know that for every day of each week a business with 50+ employees leave the state of California? It wont be long and their will be no major employers here. That 12% unemployment rate figure is way off, the real numbers are more like 25-30.

I know. they are messaging the numbers big time.

I think Obamas admin and supporters in congress changed the unemployment length to 99 weeks so they can keep the numbers artificially low for the upcoming campaign season.

I have just a small business and usually avoid much of what is in this video. But what is in this video I am hearing from my customers every week. They are just not expanding because of the uncertainty created by the current administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0S3xfh ... r_embedded

The Obama administration is a job-killing machine.

I don't know about FDR, but Obama has certainly pulled out the old speeches of Jimmy Carter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DPRqmyvSk4

NightMonkey wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0S3xfh ... r_embedded

The Obama administration is a job-killing machine.

Excellent link.

Can't address all the issues there in this one post, but in the video, the speaker's main fear is the cost of health care.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama felt he had to address healthcare, it's going to crush us if he didn't

Having seen Hilary's plan ignored because she and her "team" drew it up in secret, Obama foolishly outsourced the bill's details to a select group of (corrupt health-care and insurance-industry connected) Democrats to draw up.

Not that many Republicans aren't equally corrupt, just in a different way.

Anyway, Obama's decision (and timing) was a huge mistake, and even that industry-insider of a health bill barely passed, squeaking by exactly one (arm-twisted) vote.



Inho, 99% of successful politicians are expert on one skill set: getting elected and then re-elected. Everything else is ancillary.

Mike

Mike6977 wrote:
Can't address all the issues there in this one post, but in the video, the speaker's main fear is the cost of health care.

The speaker does say health care is the most significant issue (meaning most costly and most uncertain).

However, you can see the scary business environment Obama has created as the speaker talks about other issues of uncertainty:

- Taxes cannot be modeled accurately to estimate paybacks of investments. "The President keeps talking about raising taxes." Most businessmen who can't estimate an investment's payback will not make that investment.
- EPA regulations/carbon taxes - same problem. Freight costs which are a significant cost in the speaker's business would be hit by a carbon tax and the administration has consistently pushed for a carbon tax.
- NLRB. The labor unions put major amounts of money in Obama's campaign and expect to be paid back and there are indications the administration is doing the payback (e.g., changes in organizing regulations and that horrible interference in Boeing, South Carolina).

The speaker does not mention it, but all regulatory agencies have gotten a clear green light from Obama to "go after" businesses.

In total, the Obama administration is driving people who have money to work on ways to preserve their money and stop working on ways to invest and make more money (thereby creating more jobs, more products, and more prosperity spread over more people).

Mike6977 wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, Obama felt he had to address healthcare, it's going to crush us if he didn't

Now "Obamacare" will crush us for certain unless it can be overturned and I believe it will be.

Healthcare does not have to crush us as you state. We just need a good executive in the Oval Office who understands the basics. Obama certainly does not.

Let's see what happens in 2012.

NightMonkey, I will answer your post, but I have to digress for a bit. Please bear with me.

It'll all tie together, trust me.

I have to start with how we come to think as we do, both you and I, and pretty much everyone else.


THE HORSE WHISPERER THAT RUNS YOUR LIFE

The business literature has shown that when buying a business, most hard-core businessmen make a key mistake.

As detached as they may feel about their opinion, they don't recognize how much their subconscious drives their decision making.

Even the cream of the crop CEOs aren't immune, just look at Time Warner's CEO Gerald Levin, and his burning desire to merge with AOL, at all costs.

This is why when vetting a company to buy, the corporate planning department of the smartest companies will employ a management consulting firm (like McKinsey & Company) to do the market research and vetting for them.

The management consulting firm does a (very expensive) market analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the corporation considering the buy, the acquisition candidate itself, tax and legal consequences, etc., etc.

The hope: that the management consulting firm is truly neutral, and it doesn't have any subconscious issues driving them one way or another.

The best consulting firms have pretty good track records at this, just like the best stock pickers.





_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL . . .

Of course, when making decisions—ranging from picking a stereo to buy, to forming a lifelong political opinion—few people can afford to hire McKinsey & Company to neutrally vet that decision.

Instead, if they do any reading at all, it's from sources that already agree with them.

Ask the average FoxNews (see footnote) viewer if he's ever critically read the works of say, Noam Chomsky, and they'll say: "Who?"

Equally, ask the typical Noam Chomsky reader if he's really delved into the works of Jefferson, radical conservative Abraham Lincoln, Irving Babbitt, Buckley, or Friedman, and you'll likely get a blank stare.

None of the above mentioned gentlemen have a lock on the truth, btw. Nobody does. Not even particle physicists, analyzing the very fabric of reality.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


EVERYTHING I SAY IS A LIE

But you can do what very successful decision makers do: assume everything you believe about a particular decision is wrong.

That those "experts" who support your position are mistaken.

That the (most logical and dispassionate, not just popular) "experts" who don't support your decision are correct.

Just finding who those experts are is a real skill set, but like playing golf or tennis, you'll improve with practice.

With that as you're starting premise, and a willingness to so some real homework . . .

You can cross your fingers, and then decide.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


AS JOHN MCENROE SAID: "ARE YOU SERIOUS?!!

Reading the above, you're likely thinking: Mike6977 is whack, no one can't even BEGIN to do that every time they make a choice.



And you'd be right, typically you can't go to that extreme, unless the decision is . . . critical.

Or you have a lot of time on your hands.

But you can benefit from this "think different" principle in simple, practical ways.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


I WANT, WANT, WANT IT!

Say you read a killer review of some SOHO router in PC magazine.

You do a quick Google, find another great review in another magazine you trust, and now you have to buy that router.

You go to NewEgg, primed and ready to pull the trigger on this "must have".

But instead of doing so, you pay a quick visit to the reviews section of NewEgg.

Searching the reviews in an ascending manner, (worst to best), and paying attention to what the negative reviewers have to say.

If a theme seems to be developing, you then decide to try the Amazon reviews of the same router. Again, you look at worst to best, or even just worst to mediocre.



Will you still make mistakes? Yes. But you've just practiced true due diligence—going in the opposite way you initially wanted to go, and if you develop the knack for it—your decision-making will improve.

...............

footnote:
(1) Imho, FoxNews isn't a conservative or even libertarian slanted broadcaster. It reflects one viewpoint, that of Keith Rupert Murdoch.

If you follow the coverage in the U.K., we are just beginning to discover what illegal and immoral depths Murdoch will stoop to in order to achieve his political ambitions.

So FoxNews is hardly a neutral conservative source of information, even though—to their credit—they do coverage the traditional networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) won't touch.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________


ANSWERING TWO OF YOUR POINTS

Whew! NightMonkey, now that I look at it, that was a hell of a circuitous route to answer the points that you made in your thread.

But I had to get it off my chest, or my AHI score would go up for the next three nights.



Thanks for your patience .



NightMonkey, I can't begin to try—much less succeed—to definitively answer the points you raised.

But I do have some off-the-cuff remarks on two of your points.

NightMonkey wrote: "The President keeps talking about raising taxes." Most businessmen who can't estimate an investment's payback will not make that investment.

I may be wrong, but I thought the president has been talking about raising taxes on families earning $200,000 or more.

Businessmen typically operate under the umbrella of a corporation, and make investment projections on income vs risk, adjusted for the corporate tax rate the corporation would pay.

Not on what their individual take home tax rate would be. To do otherwise would be a failure of their fiduciary responsibility to their investors and shareholders.

BTW, this link—if accurate—would indicate that Congressional Republicans are planning to raise taxes on the poorest families. The census defines a poor family as a family of four, with an income of $20,000. That's five thousand dollars per person. Not people who can really afford a net (not federal) tax increase, imho.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html

NightMonkey wrote:all regulatory agencies have gotten a clear green light from Obama to "go after" businesses.

Pretty broad accusation. I'd like to find a detailed link for that, one that's not just in an opinion column. A link that provides first-hand quotes or memos from inside those agencies would be ideal.

I have seen a number of investigative pieces on how Reagan and Bush (as they promised they'd do) gutted agency after agency: The FDA, FAA, SEC, EPA, etc.

So, even if many of these now underfunded, undermanned agencies wanted to declare war on business, I doubt few could do an effective job.

Heck, right now they can't even manage to fulfill their charter to just adequately oversee the industries in their jurisdiction.

Even the hapless Office of Patents has so little money that it doesn't have the time to really review patents, and now absurd and abusive patents are becoming law.

When those bogus patent makers sue, and they include billionaire patent trolls like Nathan P. Myhrvold, everyone in business will pay much more to continue doing business.

It'll be just like a reverse tax.

Take from everyone and hand the money to a tiny few.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hope I gave you just a little bit of a different perspective, I trust you'll return the favor..

Michael

Random.

Mike6977 wrote:NightMonkey, I will answer your post, but I have to digress for a bit. Please bear with me.

It'll all tie together, trust me.

I have to start with how we come to think as we do, both you and I, and pretty much everyone else.


THE HORSE WHISPERER THAT RUNS YOUR LIFE

The business literature has shown that when buying a business, most hard-core businessmen make a key mistake.

As detached as they may feel about their opinion, they don't recognize how much their subconscious drives their decision making.

Even the cream of the crop CEOs aren't immune, just look at Time Warner's CEO Gerald Levin, and his burning desire to merge with AOL, at all costs.

This is why when vetting a company to buy, the corporate planning department of the smartest companies will employ a management consulting firm (like McKinsey & Company) to do the market research and vetting for them.

The management consulting firm does a (very expensive) market analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the corporation considering the buy, the acquisition candidate itself, tax and legal consequences, etc., etc.

The hope: that the management consulting firm is truly neutral, and it doesn't have any subconscious issues driving them one way or another.

The best consulting firms have pretty good track records at this, just like the best stock pickers.





_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL . . .

Of course, when making decisions—ranging from picking a stereo to buy, to forming a lifelong political opinion—few people can afford to hire McKinsey & Company to neutrally vet that decision.

Instead, if they do any reading at all, it's from sources that already agree with them.

Ask the average FoxNews (see footnote) viewer if he's ever critically read the works of say, Noam Chomsky, and they'll say: "Who?"

Equally, ask the typical Noam Chomsky reader if he's really delved into the works of Jefferson, radical conservative Abraham Lincoln, Irving Babbitt, Buckley, or Friedman, and you'll likely get a blank stare.

None of the above mentioned gentlemen have a lock on the truth, btw. Nobody does. Not even particle physicists, analyzing the very fabric of reality.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


EVERYTHING I SAY IS A LIE

But you can do what very successful decision makers do: assume everything you believe about a particular decision is wrong.

That those "experts" who support your position are mistaken.

That the (most logical and dispassionate, not just popular) "experts" who don't support your decision are correct.

Just finding who those experts are is a real skill set, but like playing golf or tennis, you'll improve with practice.

With that as you're starting premise, and a willingness to so some real homework . . .

You can cross your fingers, and then decide.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


AS JOHN MCENROE SAID: "ARE YOU SERIOUS?!!

Reading the above, you're likely thinking: Mike6977 is whack, no one can't even BEGIN to do that every time they make a choice.



And you'd be right, typically you can't go to that extreme, unless the decision is . . . critical.

Or you have a lot of time on your hands.

But you can benefit from this "think different" principle in simple, practical ways.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


I WANT, WANT, WANT IT!

Say you read a killer review of some SOHO router in PC magazine.

You do a quick Google, find another great review in another magazine you trust, and now you have to buy that router.

You go to NewEgg, primed and ready to pull the trigger on this "must have".

But instead of doing so, you pay a quick visit to the reviews section of NewEgg.

Searching the reviews in an ascending manner, (worst to best), and paying attention to what the negative reviewers have to say.

If a theme seems to be developing, you then decide to try the Amazon reviews of the same router. Again, you look at worst to best, or even just worst to mediocre.



Will you still make mistakes? Yes. But you've just practiced true due diligence—going in the opposite way you initially wanted to go, and if you develop the knack for it—your decision-making will improve.

...............

footnote:
(1) Imho, FoxNews isn't a conservative or even libertarian slanted broadcaster. It reflects one viewpoint, that of Keith Rupert Murdoch.

If you follow the coverage in the U.K., we are just beginning to discover what illegal and immoral depths Murdoch will stoop to in order to achieve his political ambitions.

So FoxNews is hardly a neutral conservative source of information, even though—to their credit—they do coverage the traditional networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) won't touch.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________


ANSWERING TWO OF YOUR POINTS

Whew! NightMonkey, now that I look at it, that was a hell of a circuitous route to answer the points that you made in your thread.

But I had to get it off my chest, or my AHI score would go up for the next three nights.



Thanks for your patience .



NightMonkey, I can't begin to try—much less succeed—to definitively answer the points you raised.

But I do have some off-the-cuff remarks on two of your points.

NightMonkey wrote: "The President keeps talking about raising taxes." Most businessmen who can't estimate an investment's payback will not make that investment.

I may be wrong, but I thought the president has been talking about raising taxes on families earning $200,000 or more.

Businessmen typically operate under the umbrella of a corporation, and make investment projections on income vs risk, adjusted for the corporate tax rate the corporation would pay.

Not on what their individual take home tax rate would be. To do otherwise would be a failure of their fiduciary responsibility to their investors and shareholders.

BTW, this link—if accurate—would indicate that Congressional Republicans are planning to raise taxes on the poorest families. The census defines a poor family as a family of four, with an income of $20,000. That's five thousand dollars per person. Not people who can really afford a net (not federal) tax increase, imho.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-in ... 16578.html

NightMonkey wrote:all regulatory agencies have gotten a clear green light from Obama to "go after" businesses.

Pretty broad accusation. I'd like to find a detailed link for that, one that's not just in an opinion column. A link that provides first-hand quotes or memos from inside those agencies would be ideal.

I have seen a number of investigative pieces on how Reagan and Bush (as they promised they'd do) gutted agency after agency: The FDA, FAA, SEC, EPA, etc.

So, even if many of these now underfunded, undermanned agencies wanted to declare war on business, I doubt few could do an effective job.

Heck, right now they can't even manage to fulfill their charter to just adequately oversee the industries in their jurisdiction.

Even the hapless Office of Patents has so little money that it doesn't have the time to really review patents, and now absurd and abusive patents are becoming law.

When those bogus patent makers sue, and they include billionaire patent trolls like Nathan P. Myhrvold, everyone in business will pay much more to continue doing business.

It'll be just like a reverse tax.

Take from everyone and hand the money to a tiny few.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hope I gave you just a little bit of a different perspective, I trust you'll return the favor..

Michael

All of that just to say FOX News is BS. WOW!