Vi-Jay

Ooooops.

The statement above may be true and yet misleading all at the same time. Stocks may have had zero nominal return and negative real return over the last decade, and yet still be a better and sounder overall retirement investment than the alternatives. A decade is simply too short a horizon to judge the compounded return of equities. The volatility and risk in the markets require a substantially longer time horizon.

You are stating facts relevant to wealth/ retirement accumulation portfolio's. A retirement accumulation portfolio for average middle class American, needs to be redefined 5-10 years prior to retirement. Depending on the amount of income needed, some to all of the portfolio should be reallocated to less volatile income producing assets.

The fact is , the average American now just collects a handful of retirement checks, and then dies.

You are joking, right?

By ERICA WERNER and JULIE PACE, Associated Press Erica Werner And Julie Pace, Associated Press

NEW YORK Treading carefully, President Barack Obama praised New York state lawmakers who were debating landmark legislation Thursday to legalize gay marriage, saying that's what democracy's all about. But as expected, the president stopped short of embracing same-sex marriage himself, instead asking gay and lesbian donors for patience.

"I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country," the president said at a Manhattan fundraiser, his first geared specifically to the gay community. Coincidentally, the long-planned event occurred just as lawmakers in Albany were debating legislation that would make New York the sixth and by far the largest state to legalize gay marriage.

That served to spotlight the president's own views on same-sex marriage, a sore point with gay supporters who've otherwise warmed to Obama. The president has said his views are "evolving," but for now he supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage.

Obama said progress will be slower than some people want, but he added that he was confident that there will be a day "when every single American, gay or straight or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, is free to live and love as they see fit.

"Traditionally marriage has been decided by the states and right now I understand there's a little debate going on here in New York," he said to laughter. New York's lawmakers, he said, are "doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do."

The lawmakers ended their session late Thursday in Albany without voting on the bill.

As Obama spoke a handful of people shouted out "marriage!" And Obama said, "I heard you guys." He never directly mentioned gay marriage.

Obama said there were those who shouted at him at events about other causes of the gay community, such as the need for anti-hate crimes legislation and for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay military service, and both of those have since been achieved.

Obama also has won favor by instructing the Justice Department to stop defending in court a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Obama told of receiving a letter last year from a teenager in a small town. He said the boy was a senior in high school who was gay and was afraid to come out. The boy wondered to the president why gays shouldn't be equal like everyone else.

"So, yes, we have more work to do," Obama said. "Yes, we have more progress to make. Yes, I expect continued impatience with me on occasion."

He said teenagers such as the one who wrote to him "remind me that there should be impatience when it comes to the fight for basic equality. We've made enormous advances just in these last two and half years. But there's still young people out there looking for us to do more."

In a direct appeal for votes, Obama said: "With your help, if you keep up the fight, if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. ... I'll be standing there, right there with you."

Overall the reaction Obama got was warm from the crowd of nearly 600 who paid up to $35,800 each to hear him speak at a midtown hotel. And only a small group of protesters showed up to demonstrate outside for marriage equality. It was a measure of how much the gay community has warmed to Obama since earlier in his administration when donors threatened to boycott Democratic fundraisers to pressure Obama on "don't ask, don't tell."

If Obama were to endorse gay marriage, it would give a jolt of enthusiasm to his liberal base and perhaps unlock additional fundraising dollars from the well-heeled gay community. It's not clear it would get him too many additional votes in 2012 though, because the Republican field's general opposition to gay rights gives activists no alternative to Obama.

At the same time, supporting gay marriage could alienate some religious voters that the politically cautious White House might still hope to win over for Obama's re-election campaign.

Obama has indicated support in the past for states allowing gay people to marry. As a presidential candidate, he went so far as to congratulate gay couples in California who married during the short period when gay marriage was legal in that state before voters shut it down.

The president also signed a questionnaire in 1996 as a candidate for Illinois state Senate saying he supported gay marriage, something the White House hasn't fully explained.

Even as the president deliberates, public sentiment is marching decisively in the direction of supporting gay marriage. Depending on the poll, people are now about evenly split or narrowly in favor.

"There's been a noticeable shift the last couple of years," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. In March, the center found that 45 percent of those surveyed favored gay marriage and 46 percent opposed it. That was the first time that the survey found an essentially even split instead of majority opposition.

It's something the president has noted, telling liberal bloggers in October that "it's pretty clear where the trend lines are going."

The question is when, how and if the president goes there too.

________________________________________________________________________________

"I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,"

The president has said his views are "evolving," but for now he supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage.

"With your help, if you keep up the fight, if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. ... I'll be standing there, right there with you."

You said Weiner.

Seriously,I thought about posting it but, I like to give the GOP benefit of the doubt (sometimes) annnnd, You posted it so see? It's all fixxored now.

My first post was really silly. I wrote million when I meant trillion.

That threw me.

see post 11. I was being lazy and went with their figure.

OK.Thanks.

Regardless, you are correct. Reverting back to the Gold standard now, would further crush the value of the Dollar.

Per CNBC its 8,965.6 tons

Thanks Sousuke. Would you please provide CNBC link. I'm curious where they got that amount. What price per ounce did you multiply?

Then I used these from the treasury:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/value-of-us-currency-in-circulation.html

but I think they include "lost" money

so I'd go by this report:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html

which is closer to 1 trillion. Thats means the ratio is in the ball park of 3:1

Thanks. The Gold reserve.., how many Troy ounces is the US holding? Where did you get that number?

So I had a look at the figures. There is roughly 3 million dollars in circulation and the US gold reserve is 100 billion.

So thats a ratio of 30:1. How could that ever balance out? If we assume that gold would rise in value as a result say 10x, that still means the dollar would need to drop to 1/3 its value.

The only other solution I can think of is that the money supply shrinks heavily.

Seems like both scenarios or a combination would cause the economy to collapse and the government with it.

Where did you get your calc numbers?

Source with Forbes interview

Want To Fix The Economy? Cut Taxes And Go Back To The Gold Standard, Says Steve Forbes

By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker

Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes says that the way to get out of our economic mess is to enact "pro-growth" policies such as lower corporate taxes and a radically simplified tax code.

The CEO and editor of Forbes Magazine, Steve Forbes also wants to throw out our byzantine tax system of brackets and deductions and replace it with a simple flat tax.

Forbes also thinks the US should immediately go back on the gold standard, before more damage is done to our currency.

The ability to print money, Forbes says, encourages the government to spend money, even when it has to create this money out of thin air. Returning to the gold standard, therefore, would rein in government spending.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Base the value of the Dollar on US Gold? Now?

I'd really suggest you educate yourself on where the administration stands

I stand corrected. I "educated" myself. What I found, OM administration scored 9/14. Most came early in his administration.

Source with video

Blodget vs. Meltzer: Is Uncertainty Over Obama’s Policies Really Killing the Economy?

By Aaron Task | Daily Ticker

"Uncertainty" is often cited as a reason for the lack of hiring and investment by the private sector, to which cynics often reply: But isn't there always uncertainty?

Yes, "but there more or less [uncertainty] and right now there's more," says Allan Meltzer, a Carnegie Mellon professor and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

According to Meltzer, new regulations such as Obama's healthcare bill and Dodd-Frank financial reform have "exacerbated enormously" the uncertain feeling gripping corporate leaders. "How else are you going explain why there's all this cash and so little investment?," he asks. "The reason is they don't know what the rate of return on that investment is going to be."

In the accompanying video, my co-host Henry Blodget, who is also the CEO of The Business Insider, challenges the notion that uncertainty over Washington policy is really a top-tier concern for small business owners.

"We're beset by uncertainty, it sucks; but the uncertainty is over what the economy is going to do over the long haul," Henry says. "We don't give a moments thought to what the administration is going to do."

But Meltzer says he hears a very different tune from other CEOs and some politicians, arguing "investment and productivity wilt under heightened uncertainty about future returns," as he wrote in a recent WSJ op-ed.

To resolve this alleged crisis of C-level confidence, the Obama Administration should "declare a five-year moratorium on new regulations and new tax increases," Meltzer says. "If the President did that…that would really free up a lot of resources."

As you might imagine, Meltzer also supports steep cuts in government spending -- "we need to take the hit," he says -- and enact permanent vs. temporary tax cuts, lauding the pro-growth policies of the Kennedy and Reagan administrations.

As this point, the economist and Fed historian believes America faces a stark choice between "a brighter future for our descendants" vs. paying more taxes and having "a welfare state like the Europeans."

Deport.

Not much, Paul. We do not expect much from you at all.

C'mon DJ often presents good arguments. I expect alot out of him and he usually delivers. As do you.

Maybe you should try to read and retain what you read. from your OP:

I'm not an OM fan. You stated OM already had/ tried these ideas. You only got one? Out of 14?

See Pakistani treatment of biharis (whom it promised to take in after 1971--only to renege after 1976, and never again lived-up to its original promise--even when Musharraf, whose grandpa migrated to Delhi from Muzaffarpur, was in power).

So you think the Arab world considers the Palestinian plight nonconsequential?

Okay, so you still haven't read what Clinton actually wrote. Or, if you have, you still can't point to the initiative that the Obama administration hasn't already proposed but not gotten through Congress. The keep on driveling if that is what makes your day.

What took you so long?

Thank you 'cause Yes, sometimes it does help to make my day.

I read the entire article. I defer to your infinite Obama familiarity. Please tell me how OM has suggested the same as Clinton. I know OM is pushing training initiatives but, what else? Obviously not much.

He has already conceded "shovel ready".

They did...but for their own interest, not the interest of the Palestinians. They invaded Israel more than once.

Are you suggesting the Arab world considers the palestinian plight nonconsequential? Superflous?

A friend of mine put it this way: What if someone invaded your house, killed your family and destroyed your property? How are you going to react? Are you going to think they are justified? What if they continue to take over all of your neighbors' property, until you are left to live in a tiny piece of land with everyone, unable to come and go as you please? What would you do in this situation?

One of my favorite books..,

I am curious 'bout something. The palestinian plight is obviously important to the "Arab" world. Why doesn't the "Arab" world do something about it?

(I apologize for my ignorance.)

I can't be on here everyday.

Well, I enjoy it when you are.

Thanks for the diagnosis nurse Ratched. You really should keep up with your haldol regimen.

You are very welcome.

For the record:

I like and enjoy the crowd here at VJ. An eclectic forum.

There are few days that I don't read something interesting on this site. I laugh quite a bit too. I'm not much of a forum surfer but, what I find here, personalities influenced by different cultures. The personalities here are familiar to me. World travellers. Look around and see, not many of our fellow citizens have the personality profile and life experience perspective familiar to world travellers. I think this forum is pretty cool and comprised of pretty cool folk.

You got all that from what I posted? Quite delusional, remember to take your haldol.

It's not delusion. It's called life experience. I've seen your personality profile before. You either A) feel gratification when others are "butthurt" or B) are often "butthurt" and think others are like you. Tough exterior but a tender "feeler" inside.

You remind me of Nelson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDxlf9bMYU

You made your assumption off one post. Are you delusional?

Nonetheless, you got butthurt over the internet.

OK Dude. If that makes you feel identified. Go ahead, project your insecurities onto others.

but, for everyone else, I did not get butthurt. Freedom to express and discuss different POV is one of the reasons I enjoy this forum.