Coal is dying because it cannot compete in the market place. It is being replaced by natural gas, of which we also as rich as Saudi Arabia. As for using a very expensive and dirty fuel just because you have a lot of it, that is what I call stupid. If Romney doesn't want the government involved in the economy, then he should stay out. A very incomplete analysis. When the EPA artificially puts its thumb on the scale, of course you see prices rise. As far as dirty goes, you can do other things with coal besides burning it.<As for the Spain rant, Spain is still suffering the impacts of Bush-era lack of regulation and bad investing, combined with Romney/Ryan spending cuts.Fail. Here you gloss over that a lot of their bad investing is in exactly the same stuff that Barack Obama likes to invest in, among other things. european "Austerity" has also largely been a myth.As for the rest, show me where the Laffer Curve worked. Sorry, you want to cut revenue on the hope -- never proven before -- that it will lead to increased tax revenue, sometime. In the meantime, you either make the cuts Romney promised not to make, or you lower revenue and increase the deficit and the debt.It boggles the mind to me to see so many people here on an investing website have so little grasp of economics. Sure, I mean, some of them are personal trainers who think that unemployment benefits make the economy grow, but still. Not everyone is that dumb.http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/credit/documents/papers/99-06.pd...http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-...The Laffer curve represents common sense. If tax rates are at 100%, then government revenues fall close to zero (as there will likely be some sucker who continues to work for free). If tax rates are zero, then government revenues are zero. The only thing left to argue is the shape of the curve and what side of equilibrium the economy is on.If you want to have an argument about whether or not the economy is taxed on the "Prohibitive range" (See the Heritage link) or on the other side, that's the appropriate debate to have. But just blowing it off is silly: it's obvious that the endpoints are correct. Unless you're a young 50-year old and believe him when he says you can lose Medicare and have a useful alternative at hand.Actually his plan says you can go to traditional Medicare if you want to. The only remaining question is, can you go back to Medicare if you hate your insurance provider and will you be able to shop around for the best deal (including across state lines)?Of course I realize why you are not bothered by his reversals of message -- he's done it before, so he can do it again. What one can't do is believe his honest assertion that, finally, after all these years, he is telling the truth.Just LOL at this. Stephanie Cutter admitted this morning that she was full of sh1t on the $5 trillion claim. On Erin Burnett's show, no less (meaning it's not like she was facing high pressure questioning). And no Obama supporter - especially on this board where righties are routinely called racists, bigots and "traitors" - has any right to claim any morality points.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat