STOCK MARKET..... Lynn said: "We continue to get evidence the economy and the market are not one and the same....While the economy has been showing some signs of strength, the market has been retreating. Until this week, the Dow which did fall Friday, snapped its three week losing streak. It rose 85 points for the week to 12,454. Year-to-date, it's up 1.94%, not a lot. The S&P 500 lost a few points on Friday, but it too is up for the week to 1332. For the year, it's ahead 4.79%......The S&P 500's price to earning ratio fell to 13.1 on May 18th."
Honey EC: Bob Brinker views the current stock market "consolidation" as "health-restoring," and expects it to be "contained within the single-digit percentage range as measured from the April 2, 2012 S&P 500 closing high of 1419." His S&P 500 Index target range is "upper-1400's to lower-1500s within the next twelve months."
Lynn said: "Trading volume is low. Those who are trading
are more sensitive to Europe's debt crisis. They fear that bank
defaults there will once again freeze credit globally. And there are
some signs that China's economy is slowing."
Honey EC: Bob Brinker certainly does not agree with Lynn about Europe's problems affecting the stock market:
Brinker said this on Moneytalk last week: “Greece represents 2% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Eurozone (worldwide it’s much less)….Now there are a lot of Greek sovereign bonds held by institutions….These are already substantially marked down as a result of the terms of the second annual bailout. And frankly by now, investors have already had a lot of time to adjust their portfolios to a reasonable level of risk to such a super junk bond represented by Greece…..The Greek situation has been going on for two years…..Is this going to be something that brings down the global economy….I don’t think it is.”
Brinker said this on May 6th: "The US market is a function of the corporate earning power of the companies that are primarily based in the United States....The present value of today's common stocks in the United States are dependent on the future estimates of their earnings and their dividends. They are not based on who the president of France is, Stan. That would be an absurd notion to say. What you are suggesting is that the US stock market depended on who's in the president's office in France. That's ridiculous....The stability of Europe is already in doubt. This is nothing new here....Believe me, the notion that the United States stock market is going to rise or fall depending on who the president of France is -- that is not what powers the US stock market."
Lynn said: "What's more, this week the Congressional Budget Office put numbers to what could happen if congress remains gridlocked for the rest of the year. A nasty January surprise, a recession as the economy contracts. Why? We are going to see those mandated spending cuts that resulted from last summer's battle over whether to honor bills racked up by the congress earlier. We are going to see the expiration of a number of tax cuts, including the adjustment for the Alternative Minimum Tax.....So even if the spending cuts that are planned are changed, there is one proposal to counter them and that would decimate all non-defense spending to increase the military budget....."
Honey EC: Brinker calls this January tax hike a "Fiscal Cliff." He said this on April 29th: "We've talked on the program about the importance of getting fiscal matters together in the USA, and it's going to be a challenge because of what is now commonly being referred to in the financial media as the "fiscal cliff....It comes to fruition when the ball comes down on New Years Eve in Time Square at the end of 2012. Because a lot taxes go up, a lot of tax breaks come to an end and a lot of spending reductions go into effect. Remember the failure of the super committee earlier this year to agree upon a new budget plan and the automatic triggers that came into play? Those will be triggered at the beginning of next year.....Probably it will be dealt with in a lame duck manner at the end of the year."
Lynn said: "Now if things are so grim, why are stocks holding up at this level? Because the US economy is the bright spot in the global economy. We're growing, slowly, but we're growing. That's the same reason why crude oil, which plunged below $90 a barrel for the first time in seven months this week, rose slightly on Friday."
CONSUMER SENTIMENT....Lynn said: "Consumer sentiment, as measure by the University of Michigan, is at it's highest level since October of 2007. The consumer index jumped nearly three points from April, more than expected."
JOBS....Lynn said: "Two thousand fewer Americans filed for jobless benefits last week. That's hardly a blip. But total claims are holding at 370,000, and that's a level where hiring happens enough to bring the jobless rate lower. Employers have added one million jobs in the past five months."
Honey EC: I only listened to the
first hour of the program, but Jeffchristie listened to all of it. He
reports that there was nothing worth my time to report or your time to
read. But if you want to hear the program, it is now available free at
KSFO 560 radio.
On a different topic, I want to report that I have purchased a used copy of Lynn Jimenez' book for about $3.50 at Amazon: ¿Se Habla Dinero? The Everyday Guide to Financial Success (English and Spanish Edition)
The entire book is written so that when you open any page, the
left side is in Spanish and the right side is in English. Each time
Lynn fills in for Brinker, I will do a little book report on some of the
subjects in it. This chapter piqued my interest, it may yours too.
Emphasis is mine:
Se Habla Dinero, Page 279, Chapter 22, Lynn Jimenez wrote: ".........By 2010, Hispanics working outside their countries of birth are expected to send home more than $100 billion in amounts averaging $200 to $400 a month.
Those of you sending money may not be rich, but you are dedicated to sending what you can. That's why it's important to be aware of the total cost, security, reliability and availability of what you send. Sending money home now is a lot different than when Mrs. Vega first arrived in the United States....."
The rest of this chapter has sections titled: Cash Transfers; Money Orders: Banking or Wire Transfers; Money Transfers via Plastic.
On a lighter note,
Jeffchristie wrote:
Lynn Jimenez was the replacement host for Bob Brinker on Moneytalk today. She also is:
A) President of the San Francisco chapter of La Raza.
B) Chairman of the California Democratic party.
C) Speech writer for Debbie Wassermann Schultz.
D) She gives speeches to people telling them how to hide assets so they can apply for student aid that they wouldn't be eligible for because of their net worth.
ANSWER: Investing in the Future: Money & School with Lynn Jimenez
In Edit: There has been some disagreement about what Lynn recommended on this video -- and what she was talking about, so I have transcribed the first few minutes of the video.
Each can draw their own conclusions. I don't hear anything that tells me she had any moral compunction about "hiding assets." She makes a passing reference to "fraud," but is more concerned with the reward not being worth the risk.
If you don't want savings in the family name to be considered when you apply for financial aid, you could put it into someone else's name. Someone you really trust, who's willing to pay tax on the interest as needed, who could the hold assets for your child for years. Don't do it, you know, if you only have two years, that's fraud, but it's also a lot of work. And then someone who will give it back when it's needed for school, so you'd need a written contract. I think it's a lot of work and risk for a little benefit. But you know, if you have a lot of savings or you want to make that a fund the whole family contributes to and then releases when it's needed, it could work. Just don't build a large account, as I said, only to transfer at the last minute. I mean, the financial records show what you've done. You know... "
Moneytalk is free on Demand and downloadable at: KSFO 560: 1-4pm for seven days after broadcast.
38 comments:
Hey honeybee thanks for your post appreciate it.I know its early but I did notice there are no comments.Perhaps you should lighten up a little on the criticism of Bob. It seems to me it gets a bit over done and that you have a small bunch of cronies that edge the conversation continually into negative territory.Just an outside view to put the blog in perspective. Thanks again for all your work it is appreciated but if others feel like me please contribute thanks..
John,
You say it's early? That's funny, your comments arrived at 3:47 AM.
That was about six hours after I published this Moneytalk summary of Lynn Jimenez' show.
You complain about the criticism of Bob Brinker and claim you are putting the blog "in perspective."
The "perspective" of this blog is to report facts, both pro and con about a public figure who is on the radio 3 or 4 times a month selling market-timing newsletter to listeners who have no way of knowing what his true record is....
As for "others contributing" to your bashing me and other posters. Forget about it. If you don't like this blog, there are millions of other ones for you to read in the middle of the night.
I read her blog everyday.H.B.'s blog
is very good.The reason people don't
post all the time is ,simply because,the market has been in a
trading range for a long time and
it can make people like me bored.
Have a great day Ms. H. B.
Hi Honeybee sorry to get you going you do provide a good service. Anyways I am on the east coast so that is the time differential. I really appreciate your reporting and didn't mean to sound unappreciative forget my last statement I just have to keep my thoughts to myself..
I see that Lynn has the same "rip off the government" morals that one has come to expect from liberal progressives. The only solution: "don't feed the beast."
John...You don't have to keep your thoughts to yourself. I welcome constructive criticism. However, please be specific.
I found it very strange that you would complain about this blog and what you call "my cronies" on a Lynn Jimenez summary where not one critical or negative thing was said about Bob Brinker.
And then asking for others to agree with you seemed very rude to me. I would guess that others who don't like the blog, don't read it.
And I promise you, this blog is read by many thousands.
"I see that Lynn has the same "rip off the government" morals that one has come to expect from liberal progressives. The only solution: "don't feed the beast."
What did she say to indicate she wants to "rip off the government"?
Are you talking about the hard working person sending money home? To me that indicates a person not only willing to work to support himself but somebody who takes care of his family too.
Is there something wrong with that?
Aldon
Aldon,
You need to watch the video. Lynn is clearly giving advice on how to cheat in order to get more college money.
If her advice is followed, it's against the law, and might lead to prosecution of anyone who gets caught.
A while back, Bob Brinker told a caller to basically do the same thing in order to cheat a bank on a short sale -- cover up your real net worth....
OIC. I watched that video and IMO Lynn Jimenez is clearly giving advice to skirt the law. I am surprised there are NO comments on that YouTube video re: her illegal advice or anything else.
I am surprised that she gave that advice...in English anyway. She probably didn't know she was being recorded.
But I don't agree with Matt who lays the blame for such blatant illegal advice on liberals. Dishonest people come in all political strips.
Matt also says that..."The only solution: "don't feed the beast."
I don't think that providing financial assistance to students in these difficult times is "feeding the beast". Matt should take a look at the UC Chancellors who have raised their own salaries I don't know how many times while they raise the kids' tuition at least every quarter.
Maybe they are the beasts who need to be starved.
Aldon
I find it disturbing that Bob has someone like Lynn Jimenez filling in for him when he takes his Sundays off.
I wish he could bring in someone to balance her extreme left-wing views, so his show could be a little more "fair & balanced". Some of us like fiscal conservatism, strong border security, and a pro-capitalism perspective. Lynn is not that person.
how terrible on my birthday may 27th to have old lynn on again ,, she cuts people off and I cracked up when the 8 second delay didn't stop some man that wanted to make a point and she cut him off and he said " you are going to blow me off" and it came over the air,, what a laugh ,, she went nuts..she is not my cup of tea,, and she bores me ,, ms bee is right ... and has her number,,, carry on ms bee ,, your work and comments are right on,,, great work
Some good news out of Europe tonight:
LONDON (Reuters) - European stocks rose for a third straight session on Monday and the euro bounced back from two-year lows, as Greek polls showing growing support for pro-bailout parties eased speculation about a disorderly exit by Athens from the single currency.
But the gains were seen as vulnerable to developments in Spain, where the government's borrowing costs rose sharply as investors factored in the impact of fixing the troubled banking sector on the government's finances.
Global share markets, commodities and the euro are largely recovering from the sharp falls of last week, when investors fled to the safety of the U.S. dollar on mounting concerns about Greece's future and Spain's banking sector, and after some disappointing economic data from China and Europe.
Read more
Bartee,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY to you from the chipmunks!!
I looked over Lynn's book last year and considered it a good starting point for one beginning an investment plan. Basic advice along with shark avoidance.
Watching the speech from Ms Jimenez that Honey provided, one line caught my ear. When detailing how to put funds in someone else's name while seeking financial aid, she admitted that it is "a lot of work and risk for a little benefit." She added "Don't do it if you only have two years, that's fraud."
Why a time limit on fraud?
Birdbrain asked: "She added "Don't do it if you only have two years, that's fraud. Why a time limit on fraud?"
Birdbrain,
Wow... I missed that "two year" thing. Thanks for listening carefully enough to catch it.
I would sure like to know the answer to your question.
Jeffchristie, you have a legal mind. Do you have any ideas why she said that?
Today freedom lost a great patriot in the form of my friend Tony Cutrano. Tony walked to his own drummer, an entrepreneur who gave back and of himself. He was co-founder of the Freedom Wall, a monument to the thousands slain in the Middle east conflicts.
Today the world is a little less bright for those who lost such a fine comrade.
tfb
Link to info about Tony
Lynn is acting as a financial advisor and would be in trouble if she advised people to do something illegal. The legality of her advice was the second question I had. The first one was is it moral to do this and I concluded it was probably not.
I didn't hear Lynn mention the two year time limit either so I researched it a bit.
It looks like she is telling people to reduce their assets to qualify for more student assistance.
The financial aid people are going back a year or two to check for assets that may have been reduced so I guess that's what she is talking about.
There are legal ways you can reduce the assets and gifting would be one of them. If it isn't really a gift then there is at least a moral question.
Aldon
http://www.financialaidfinder.com/financial-aid/strategies-for-affordable-college/increasing-your-aid-package/
The ignorant one states:
While the economy has been showing some signs of strength
That is hilarious, it is on life support and there will be QE3 coming soon. If it was healthy the Fed would let interest rates rise, we could stop the insanity know as the payroll tax cuts, and we would make the con artists who took out mortgages pay what they agreed to and under the terms of the agreement they signed.
There is no sign of strength, what you have been seeing is various levels of exasperation and capitulation when low wage earners and those formerly in the middle class give up hope. When that happens they shift from looking ahead, saving for a house and planning for retirement and simply shift into 100% conspicuous consumption. That is what he spikes in spending have been about, people who give up start spending every dollar they have on conspicuous consumption, hence fast food, fast casual, chocolate, soda pop, beer etc, life's simple pleasures start to do well. It is simulative but only to a certain point. That is why you see pushed then retreat in economic activity. One oil spike and the conspicuous consumption stops as they have to buy gas vs soda pop etc. The consumer is tapped, real wages are in a long term decline, as long as we have high level of legal immigration and illegal aliens and HB1 and other visas the American worker cannot even be on the right side of the boomer retirement which should have been a slam dunk for expanding the middle class and upward mobility.
Now if things are so grim, why are stocks holding up at this level?
Because businesses can make money and be very, very profitable in this type of economy. There is no pressure on wages, labor's back is broken, they have no incentive to hire as they can require overtime as no cost from exempt workers in high value occupations. There is no competition for inventories and spending is going on via the aforementioned capitulation and those who have higher level job skills. Essentially at the low end you have discouraged people who spend every dime they have on frivolity because it brings them temporary happiness and allows them to live for the moment when they do not see a future and on the upper end, well things are pretty good too. So many companies can thrive in this market.
tfb
But I don't agree with Matt who lays the blame for such blatant illegal advice on liberals. Dishonest people come in all political strips.
I doubt that. By definition a Conservative has respect for the rule of law and holds it as the Rosetta Stone of our society. Now if you meant Republicans you are correct, but there is a huge difference between a conservative and a Republican.
You can see it in Flip-Mitt, he is not a conservative, he has no principles other than what can I say to get me elected. Yet when compared with the Muslim Kenyan national known as Obama, the manufactured Mattel doll labeled as Romney looks pretty good.
tfb
Birdbrain and all,
In addition to your comments here about Lynn's video, I got some emails that made me decide to do some transcribing.
Doesn't sound to me like she has any moral compunctions at all about lying or "fraud." She even made a subtle warning about transactions showing up.
Here is what she said:
Lynn Jimenez said: "A short version of how you set up a long-term blueprint to prepare to pay for your child's education. You may have heard that savings can hurt your chances of financial aid. That's only a little bit true these days because things have changed. On average, when you apply for financial aid, you are asked to pay based on income and assets. Savings are assets, right? But current formulas tax only about 5% of assets a year. That is, the formula assumes that 5% of your family savings are available to help out with tuition and fees every year. And that's not too bad.The size of your family matters and whether you have more than one child in college at a time matters. So all of that factors into your favor.
If you don't want savings in the family name to be considered when you apply for financial aid, you could put it into someone else's name. Someone you really trust, who's willing to pay tax on the interest as needed, who could the hold assets for your child for years. Don't do it, you know, if you only have two years, that's fraud, but it's also a lot of work. And then someone who will give it back when it's needed for school. So you'd need a written contract. I think it's a lot of work and risk for a little benefit. But you know if you have a lot of savings or you want to make that a fund the whole family contributes to and then releases when it's needed, it could work. Just don't build a large account, as I said, only to transfer at the last minute. I mean, the financial records show what you've done. You know..."
"By definition a Conservative has respect for the rule of law and holds it as the Rosetta Stone of our society."
I love it. A conservative cannot be a crook and holds the rule of law as a Rosetta Stone???
A Keystone maybe, but a Rosetta Stone?
So tfb, I see you have reconciled to having either a Kenyan Muslim or a totally unprincipled Mattell doll as president.
I suppose you will be wasting your vote on some never heard of local loudmouth who probably has never even seen the White House.
Don't you fringe party people understand that when you waste your vote by voting your "conscience" you are voting for Obama just as surely as if you had marked the ballot for him?
Aldon
I love it. A conservative cannot be a crook and holds the rule of law as a Rosetta Stone???
A Keystone maybe, but a Rosetta Stone?
I agree, Keystone may be more appropriate than Rosetta stone.
Once again if you are a conservative you believe in the rule of law, therefore you would not be a crook - simple as that. Now people can masquerade as a conservative, but that is very different than being one.
And Romney is a far better choice than Obama, heck PeeWee Herman is a better choice than Obama, but that does not correct Romney's deficiencies.
You also might want to consider that many people can cast a vote for their conscience because we do not elect by popular vote. Hence people in strong Blue States such as IL can vote for Donald Duck and it will not alter the outcome of the election. However it is important for third parties that they receive enough votes in those states to gain ballot access on equal footing with the major party candidates.
In may area, if you are a Republican or Democrat you need 25 petition signatures to get on the ballot, if you are an Independent or other party you needed 1300 signatures, and this for a very minor office. On Statewide races the margins are greater 5000 vs 50,000.
Personally I do not think third parties should yet via for higher offices, I think they can be far more effective as a known voting bock that can sway an election one way or another; that gives them a seat at the table. Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to make it difficult for candidates to gain ballot access against the two major parties. Why should a Green Party school board candidate need 1000 signatures verses a Republican or Democrat who needs on 25 (btw, that example is made up, but it serves to illustrate the point)
But the above is the reason third parties run for higher office, because if hey skim enough vote they meet the guidelines for established party signature gathering process and can run on even ground for local, county, and state offices.
It the two major parties would stop erecting egregious barriers at the local level the third parties would not squander their resources on national campaigns. Heck no one wants to be a spoiler, but they are essentially forced to do it for survival and they would much rather put their resources into local races where they can win and build a party form the ground up – which is exactly what the two major parties are afraid of. If you let third parties compete at the local level, they will start winning races simply because people are fed up with the two party system and the stakes to experiment are not too high.
Anyways…
tfb
Don't you fringe party people understand that when you waste your vote by voting your "conscience"
Btb, I will be supporting Virgil Goode for President, who has a fine record of winning elections and public service as a Virginia Senator and 6 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Virgil is running under the Constitution party banner. And has a fine record of winning Democrats, Republicans, and Independents based on principles and ideology not party affiliation.
About Virgil
tfb
After reading your thoughts on third party candidates I have changed my mind.
I see you are supporting Virgil Goode running on the Constitution Party ticket.
I haven't heard of the Constitution Party but I have heard of the Green Party so I am going to vote for their candidate...
Rosanne Barr
Thanks again tfb.
Aldon
Okay, okay, okay....
Now that some of you have voiced your political opinions on the election, I am going to call a moratorium on the subject.
I do want to make it clear that none of the election comments are mine and I do not agree with any of them.
I'll spare you my opinions on who I want to win.
Doesn't sound to me like she has any moral compunctions at all about lying or "fraud." She even made a subtle warning about transactions showing up.
Jimenez has demonstrated repeatedly she has the morals of an alley cat in heat.
According to her, illegal aliens are hapless victims who have committed no crime when they knowingly invade a sovereign nation, people who lied about their income in order to qualify for home owner loan are hapless victims, people who chose to buy a home which is now worth less than the purchase price are not morally obligated to pay what they agreed to.
She also thinks that people have the right to use their vote to deprive other of the just fruits of their labor and steal what they have to redistribute to others.
tfb
TFB,
LOL! Lynn certainly never has indicated any believe in "personal responsibility."
Her mission seems to be to teach how to get the most out of the "system."
I was very offended at her repeated reference to "sending money home."
I belong to the old school that says if you want to live and work in the United States, you should learn the language and make America your "home" - or take your money and go home.
"I was very offended at her repeated reference to "sending money home."...I belong to the old school that says if you want to live and work in the United States, you should learn the language and make America your "home" - or take your money and go home."
Not me. I applaud those workers, illegal or not, who have the guts to go to a foreign country and work at jobs that most Americans won't touch.
They are working not only for themselves, but for their family and if something is wrong with that I don't get it. They are not sitting around on welfare like the Americans who won't take the jobs.
BTW, what is the difference between them and an American who works at a temporary job in Saudi Arabia and "sends money home" to his family in America?
Arelleano
Arelleano,
I don't know the answer to your question.
Why not ask some of the 16% of American workers who can't find jobs, and may be losing their homes, how they feel about people who don't call the US "home" working here and sending money to support foreign "homes."
"Why not ask some of the 16% of American workers who can't find jobs"
Can I find those unemployed Americans in the fields, orchards or hanging around Home Depot?
Nope, they are content to collect unemployment benefits for TWO YEARS before they will even consider a lower paying job.
Americans not only will not accept the menial jobs done by Latinos, they can't handle them. The average American worker can't handle a full day of manual labor anymore.
Americans LOVE low cost fresh produce resulting from low wages paid to illegal workers. They can't have it both ways.
Arellaneo
Sure there are some Americans too lazy to do menial work and would rather accept hand-outs. The government at all levels sure makes that easy to do.
But when the 52% who are paying taxes get fed up enough, the freeloading gravy train will end. I'm sure that most all able-bodied would rather work than starve.
That said, I find your contempt for honest, hard-working Americans repulsive.
Not me. I applaud those workers, illegal or not, who have the guts to go to a foreign country and work at jobs that most Americans won't touch.
It has never been a question of Americans not be willing to touch the job, it has always been a question of not willing to touch a job at the wage level offered.
For instance, a few years ago when we had those horrible coal mining tragedies I noticed on thing, the people who died in those mines were lily-white. They were willing to touch jobs that are better suited for a mole than a human being because of the pay scale.
All immigrants, illegal aliens etc are doing is allowing employers to reduce their labor costs to subsistence level or below. Unfortunately we also have a welfare system that allows you to exist at a subsistence level without working.
You can also blame Chavez agriculture solidarity movement for effectively stopping all Government money that was funding university research on automating agriculture and maintenance jobs (lawn mowing hedge trimming etc).
You may not remember this but back in the 50s there was a huge move to revolutionize agriculture int he U.S. and eliminate most low level farm labor through breeding programs and automation. The automation funding was decimated and the breeding programs reduced in scope, some was picked up by the private sector but not much (that is what Round-up came out of, it was designed as a ground clear for hedgerow orchard production that would allow you to grow orchard grass to harbor beneficial insects and provide organic mulch while allowing you to clear the base of the tree in order to allow effective irrigation and reduce nutrient competition for dwarfing rootstock. )
I mention the above for two reasons, to illustrate that we are not as dependent on low skill labor as we are lead to believe (we have made choices by not automating because Chavez did not want to lose his clout and Mexico did not want to face its unemployment problem) and that people will do these jobs if the wage is attractive enough. The way you raise wages is by reducing population. What happens is the income distribution flattens and the middle class grows and the difference between the classes is minimized as a result.
tfb
Does Lynn recommend moving assets and then going to bank to get relief from underwater mortgage?
jorge
From the Cato Institute:
On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an "unconditional war on poverty in America." At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing. Between then and now, the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade. Clearly, we have been doing something wrong.
When most Americans think of welfare, they think of the cash benefit program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). But in reality TANF is only a tiny portion of a vast array of federal government social welfare programs designed to fight poverty. In fact, if one considers those programs that are means-tested (and therefore obviously targeted to low-income Americans) and programs whose legislative language specifically classifies them as anti-poverty programs, there are currently 126 separate federal government programs designed to fight poverty.
"For instance, a few years ago when we had those horrible coal mining tragedies I noticed on thing, the people who died in those mines were lily-white. They were willing to touch jobs that are better suited for a mole than a human being because of the pay scale."
Of course those miners were lily-white. They were members of the United Mine Workers, one of the most powerful and discriminatory unions in the country.
Why are you so quick blame Ceasar Chavez union efforts as a scapegoat for agricultural problems yet say nothing about John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers union?
You claim..."The way you raise wages is by reducing population."
Which may or may not be true but it is population reduction has not become government policy in this country...yet! And hopefully never will be.
Your arguments that agricultural mechanization can solve the illegal farm worker problem leaves me unconvinced.
Areallaneo
and programs whose legislative language specifically classifies them as anti-poverty programs, there are currently 126 separate federal government programs designed to fight poverty.
You would logically also have to add the mortgage interest deduction as a form of transfer payment and an unjust Government subsidy.
tfb
HB said, "But when the 52% who are paying taxes get fed up enough, the freeloading gravy train will end."
Ah yes, and they shall call it "Atlas Shrugged"! Who is John Galt? Well, he ain't the guy in the White House, that's for sure!
Post a Comment