DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.
Bulls & Bears
This past week's Bulls & Bears: Gary B. Smith, TheChartman.com; Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com; Eric Bolling, Fox Business Network; Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research, and Maria Cardona, Democratic strategist.
White House Eyes Spending Freeze; Wants $1.2 Trillion Health Care Overhaul First
Eric Bolling: If they're trying to save money, we have a great place to start. We have a $1 trillion heath care bill, $787 billion stimulus package, $350 billion that has come back from TARP, another $1 trillion in PPIP, $1 trillion in TAF—we've actually surpassed $4 trillion dollars!
Maria Cardona: When this president came into office, he inherited a massive deficit and one of the biggest economic meltdowns since the great depression. He had to put the American Recovery Act into place to bring us back from the brink of a complete economic meltdown. We lost 190,000 jobs this month—which is completely unacceptable—but let's compare that to the 750,000 jobs that were lost back in January and last December. So while things are not where we need them to be, the numbers are going in the right direction.
Tobin Smith: We should to something smart and take on the big stuff, because discretionary spending only makes up 35 percent of the budget. If we look at Medicare alone, there are $1 trillion that can be saved by implementing technologies that we currently have at our disposal. We could also replicate the malpractice reform that already exists in Texas. Let's take all of those savings and put them into a tax credit for jobs and make those jobs include health care coverage.
Pat Dorsey: Certainly getting a 5 percent cut in the 35 percent of the budget that is discretionary would be a good start. If we can actually get some momentum and cut spending (something that hasn't happened the past few decades), I'll be dancing a jig. But let's not kid ourselves and think that it will actually solve our problems. We are going to have to tackle Social Security, Medicare, and implement health care that is actually reform and not just expansion of the system. Reform has to bend the cost curve, which unfortunately the current plan does not.
Gary B. Smith: The fact of the matter is that this won't be deficit neutral. We all know that this isn't going to be a $1 trillion program; it is going to cost a whole lot more. Medicare came in ten times over budget. The Big Dig came in a seven times over budget. Even the Kennedy Center parking lot came in four times over budget. There has never been a budget program that I can find that has come in anywhere near estimates. If this health care plan passes, we are going to totally blow the current deficits out of the water.
President Calls for Jobs Summit as Unemployment Hits 10.2 Percent
Eric Bolling: You generally have summits when you have no idea what to do next. If you go to Recovery.gov, you will find that only $207 billion of the stimulus has been spent. 640, 329 jobs have been created so far, so that comes out to about $323,000 per job. The stimulus package is not working, and they know this. That's why they're resorting to Plan B and holding a summit.
Maria Cardona: They are simply going to look at what we need to do next. Again, the first stimulus package was passed in order to bring us back from the brink of economic collapse. More than half of the money has yet to be spent. The money that has been spent has saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Tobin Smith: Democrats always confuse investment and expense. What we saw was that an investment was made when checks were sent to states in order to save jobs they cannot afford to have in the first place. This was actually a non-stimulus plan. Instead of actually creating jobs, we lost over 4.5 million jobs.
Gary B. Smith: The hidden subtext of the Obama administration is that they want us all dependent on the government so they can keep winning elections. Obama said that if we don't pass the stimulus bill, we would have unemployment at 10 percent. That isn't something that Bush said, it's something that Obama said. Right now we are at 10.2 percent but the effective unemployment rate is probably close to 17 percent. I don't understand how people can defend this kind of stimulus.
Pat Dorsey: Unemployment is always a lagging indicator in every recession and it typically lags by about three quarters. The economy is recovering now but we're probably going to see unemployment peak in March or April. It just takes time to create jobs because the economy has its own momentum, and whether or not we spend is not going to change anything.
Is Reagan's Pro-Capitalism Vision Under Attack in USA?
Gary B. Smith: I'm afraid he would be rolling over in his grave. President Obama is the most anti-capitalistic and anti-business president that I can ever recall. His entire message is that 'big government will do it.' Whether it's the bailout of GM, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, or throwing money at Wall Street, he is setting the precedent that no one is allowed to fail. Without risk in the market, we don't have capitalism.
Maria Cardona: There is so much hyperbole that I don't even know where to start. Of course we are still the most powerful capitalist nation in the world, and of course President Obama is going to continue to pass policies to ensure that this continues. In fact, everything he has done is to make sure that our economy does not collapse.
Eric Bolling: There is nothing capitalistic about a pay czar telling us how much we can make. The same is true with the car czar giving us $4,500 if we can't afford a car. The same is also true with the mortgage czar that is modifying rates and excusing some of the payments if you can't afford to pay the bill. None of these things are capitalistic.
Pat Dorsey: This is definitely a left-wing presidency—one that is more left than I would have hoped for. I actually thought he would be much more centrist. Calling him socialist and anti-capitalistic is going a little too far I think.
Tobin Smith: Let's ask ourselves the question: how does one create wealth? There is one perspective in which entrepreneurs take risks and you allow businesses to fail, so the strong can take over the weak. Most importantly, you don't sterilize the system to make it 'all fair.' Everything I hear from the current administration is about fairness. Let me tell you something—I've been a capitalist for 30 years and fair is a weather report when it comes to capitalism, and when you try to sterilize it, you kill it.
Gary B Smith: Walmart makes Black Friday safe and profitable! "WMT" jumps 40 percent in 1 year
Tobin Smith: President's trip keeps money flowing, but dollar falls; "DXDDX" up 40 percent by April
Pat Dorsey: Shaky market, steady payout! "EPE" powers up 40 percent in 2 years
Eric Bolling: Playboy hook-up heats up "ICON" 30 percent if deal goes through
Cavuto on Business
Neil Cavuto was joined by Ben Stein, author of "How To Ruin The USA"; Charles Payne of Wall Street Strategies; Dagen McDowell, Fox Business Network host; Adam Lashinsky, Fortune magazine.
Closed Senate Door in D.C.: Bill Clinton Says Tea Partiers Are Mad About Dems Winning Health Care Fight; Are They Really Mad About D.C.'s Spending Binge?
Charles Payne: People are afraid of runaway spending, the end of contract law, the end of choices and the remaking of this nation into something akin to France. People are angry because their hard work is going to be snatched away from them and redistributed. People are fighting back because that is the spirit of America.
Ben Stein: They are angry because they see America moving in the direction of socialism and the loss of individual freedoms. They see Americans burdened with debt that we can never repay. They see an America where political correctness trumps truth, and where the national leadership no longer believes in freedom.
Adam Lashinsky: Bill Clinton has good political instincts. Tea party attendees in particular are mad because they're losing.
House Speaker Pelosi Wants to Give Americans Health Care for Christmas; But Americans Have to Pay for Her Gift
Dagen McDowell: This is like the government taking your credit card and buying presents for someone you don't even know!
Charles Payne: This is a gift to people that don't want to work have been lulled into a comfortable existence on the government dole and all they have to do for it is give their votes away. It's not a gift for people who already have plans and relationships with their doctors, it's not a gift to people that will have to pay for something they don't want; it's not a gift to small businesses.
Ben Stein: Maybe an even better question, why do I have to pay a staggering additional amount of tax to pay for Christmas presents for people who mostly do not even want government mandated health care in the first place? Why will I, as a senior citizen, have to have my Medicare gutted and my taxes raised to pay for a health plan that does not work in the first place as a means of protecting health and freedom? And why would I ever even remotely want my taxes used to pay for abortion?
Adam Lashinsky: In a democracy, the taxpayers always pay for its government's actions. We paid for World War II. We paid for the Apollo moon shot. We'll pay for health care.
Climate Bill: Power Grab?
Charles Payne: It's part of the "Obama Nuclear Option" to snatch control of energy, finance and health industries all at the same time and turn this into a country where mediocrity is promoted and reward and ambition scorned and punished.
Ben Stein: Obama's socialist/environmentalist government has said it can regulate everything that expels CO2. That includes animals, and human beings. With that much power, the government can effectively control the whole society and a limited government under the Constitution is over. People who do not love liberty always use some pretext to take away freedom: environmentalism is Obama's pretexts so far — I am sure there will be others. This is probably the most dangerous bill ever passed by Congress — if it does pass.
Adam Lashinsky: Nonsense. Reagan and Bush II established a strong presidency eons ago. This sounds like sour grapes.
Stocks to Unlock Profits
Charles Payne: NETGEAR (NTGR)
Adam Lashinsky: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES (UTX)
Ben Stein: S&P SPDRs (SPY)
Forbes on Fox
On Saturday, November 14, 2009, David Asman was joined by Steve Forbes, Bill Baldwin, Neil Weinberg, Mike Ozanian, Victoria Barret, Quentin Hardy, Mike Maiello, and Elizabeth MacDonald.
In Focus: Biggest Winner in House Health Care Bill: Unions?
David Asman: Surprise! Despite what lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are promising, the biggest winner in health care reform won't be you. Nope. It's the unions! And wait till you hear what the folks at Forbes uncovered proving it's true. Vickie - you did some digging into that health care bill and found that the biggest winner is…?
Victoria Barret: Unions. I actually tried to read this thing, which is more than a lot of people in Washington, I would imagine. What's really interesting to me was that hospitals can get funding for nurse training programs basically so long as they are unionized. This is a nice little handout to unions, and there are lots of other things in this bill that strike me as real giveaways to unions. We talked about those "Cadillac plans" that were going to get taxed. Well, that's now up for debate because a lot of union health care plans would qualify as these gold-plated or "Cadillac" plans. Add that to the fact that we're just creating another huge bureaucracy, a large part of which will probably be unionized. I think you can easily make the case that unions are the largest winners out of all of this.
Quentin Hardy: Well, Victoria, I think you have to save the right-wing paranoia for half-term Alaska governors and talk show hosts currently in drug recovery. Since you read it, you know there is no provision for how much money is involved here and that the unionized hospitals are one of four facilities to further nurse training. The other three being training facilities where nurses get input, state institutions, and nursing schools. So unions are one of four ways. Now, I will tell you who is going to benefit from this. It's people who don't have insurance now. None of them are in unions because that's one of the things that unions provide for people.
David Asman: Mike Ozanian, certainly there would be a lot of new government workers to fill up this government bureaucracy?
Mike Ozanian: One of the intentions of this entire plan is to create an army of unionized workers in Washington that will dictate health care for all of us. We just saw unveiled this week that Senator Reid has a secret plan he's been working on where he is going to raise taxes on people earning $200,000 or more so he can lower the taxes on these "Cadillac" plans to protect the unions.
Steve Forbes: At the end of the day, unions and the economy are going to lose because it's going to destroy a lot of jobs and when jobs are destroyed, just look at General Motors – 40 years ago they had 395,000 blue collar workers today it's 38,000 even though they had gold plated this and gold plated that. So at the end of the day unions are going to lose. The only winners are going to the government bureaucrats and lawyers. They're getting a lot out of this bill.
Elizabeth MacDonald: It's not wrought with paranoia. Vicky is following her journalistic instincts, and the problem with this bill is that this is one big rats nest of a bill. It's about as transparent as a bathtub of molasses. The danger is that the politicians in Congress who get a lot of campaign donations from unions could "Christmas tree" this bill at the 11th hour at the dead of night on Christmas Eve. What I found too is $10 billion set aside potentially for unionized companies to defray the costs of retiree health benefits, meaning the UAW, union-owned car companies. Also I am seeing too that potentially states like California could dump their older workers onto the public plan. It wouldn't stop any of these unionized companies from dumping their retirees onto the public plan, as well.
Mike Maiello: Victoria and I decided to contact Harry Reid's office last week just to find out and make sure and the idea of taxing "Cadillac" union plans is still very much on the table. So an argument can be made that unions are making a huge sacrifice here because they got those plans…
David Asman: Why are they so much in favor of this plan if it hurts them?
Mike Maiello: Because it's actually good for everyone because it gives their members who are employed now security that they can get health care later, but still it should be our "Thanksgiving segment" to labor.
Government's Money Shell Game? Can We Trust the Government to Cut Costs to Pay for Health Care Reform?
David Asman: This you probably know: Democrats banking on half a trillion in cost cuts to help pay for their trillion-dollar health care reform. But history shows that when Congress cuts something the savings don't last! Steve Forbes says history's getting ready to repeat itself big time and at your expense! Steve, isn't DC just playing a shell game?
Steve Forbes: Sure it is. There are only three certain things in life: Death, taxes and government overruns. And on this one, they are financing six years worth of health care with 10 years worth of taxes, which means in the future this is going to explode. One example is $250 billion in fees for doctors was taken out of the health care bill to pretend that it's not there. They're going to pass it in another bill. So those are the kinds of games they're playing. More money for less.
Mike Maiello: Any powerful president can cut pretty much whatever they want. I'll go to the Cato institute, my liberal-leaning friends, for some evidence here because I was doing some research on corporate welfare programs and subsidy programs and they said that actually under the Clinton years, a lot of the corporate welfare did get cut. And then it came back under Bush. Why? Two different presidents with two different priorities. It can be done. And if it's not, it's only because the people don't want it done.
Bill Baldwin: This bill has been wrongly characterized as a $1 trillion budget buster. It's actually a $2 trillion budget buster. It has been wrongly characterized by big government lovers like Mike Maiello as being something that will extend insurance to people who aren't insured. The real essence of the bill is to totally displace privately-funded health insurance with "Cadillac" government-run insurance plans. That's going to happen. It's going to cost maybe more than $2 trillion.
Neil Weinberg: It's a shell game, but the idea that this is just going to grow and grow is just nonsense. After World War II, the government's budget went down. After the Reagan buildup, Clinton brought it down. We got rid of the deficit. Despite the common wisdom, the government is capable of reducing it's spending at certain times.
Mike Ozanian: Over the last 100 years, the federal budget has grown from 10 percent of the economy to 45 percent. In times of no war, it's only fallen 2 times – the second half of the Reagan years and the second half of the Clinton years thanks to the Republican Congress. Medicare, when it was signed into law until 1965, was proposed to have a $9 billion budget in 1990. Guess what the budget was? $65 billion.
Quentin Hardy: Mike, you're a stats guy and should know they didn't account for inflation when they put that Medicare number up, so that has no relevance. Just because George Bush lied, deceived, and fell short on the budget many times over, that doesn't mean it happens repeatedly. As you saw yesterday, for next year's budgets, all the cabinet heads have been told you have to keep it either at budget or have a second one at a 5 percent cut. That indicates a good-faith move that could indicate some of the good things government has done before.
Eminent Domain: Good or Bad for the Economy?
David Asman: Is it time to stop government land grabs for good? Nearly a decade ago in New England, the government took over this private property including the now-famous pink house. They said it was for the good of the community to rebuild the property, create thousands of jobs, and bring in millions in revenue. Today? The lot is vacant and Elizabeth Macdonald says that empty lot proves eminent domain is an eminent threat!
Elizabeth MacDonald: It is an eminent threat. In fact, what we're seeing in this decision by the Supreme Court is effectively wrecking property rights in this country. This country was practically founded on property rights. They are doing a tortured reading of the U.S. Constitution, also the constitutions in all 50 states. The takings clause is about seizing private property for public use and not for private use. You're seeing private developers stepping in and getting a tortured reading of the laws, so they're convincing local state politicians and state municipalities to do this so they can get property taxes raised, so they can enact their own tax-and-spend policies. It's a disaster.
Neil Weinberg: I think tortured is when you paint a house pink. Without eminent domain, we'd be missing a few small things in this country like highways, maybe some railroads, airports, and things like that. The fact is, our population is increasing and eminent domain is becoming increasingly important. Yes, you can find some abuses like the Kelo case, but we need eminent domain.
Steve Forbes: This was done for corrupt political purposes just to put another development in a local area. This wasn't building a highway or building a school or something that has a real broad public use. When you have those kinds of public and private partnerships, they become public and private muggings. This is a classic case of politicians getting paid off.
Bill Baldwin: Forget New London. Forget Pfizer. New York City is full of rundown blocks that can't be redeveloped because of the holdout problem. The last owner wants $55 million for a cigar store. The solution is eminent domain. Wait a minute now. When I am done bulldozing, I'm not going to give it in a sweetheart deal to politically-connected people. That's how the New York Times got really cheap land for its headquarters. When I am done with my bulldozers, I'm going to auction it and the proceeds go to the former owners.
David Asman: Private property – there is nothing more sacred in terms of an object like private property. That's what this country was built on. Do we want to be so callous about getting rid of it?
Victoria Barret: No. We can't be callous. The bar has to be very high for eminent domain cases. The Kelo case should not have been qualified as eminent domain because it wasn't for the greater good. We have to use eminent domain when we're talking about railroads, highways, schools, and hospitals - things that the community and larger communities around it can benefit from.
Informer: Most Powerful Stocks in the World
David Asman: Hot of the presses! The Forbes "Most Powerful People in the World" list and our Informers have the "most powerful stocks" to put you on that list next year.
Mike Ozanian: Deutsche Bank (DB)
Victoria Barret: Apple (AAPL)
Bill Baldwin: ExxonMobil (XOM)
Neil Weinberg: BlackRock (BLK)
Dems to Hike Payroll Taxes to Pay for Health Care: Bad for Jobs?
Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co.: It hurts the job market. That's what it does. Any time you raise taxes historically, it has hurt the job market. You can't create jobs by raising taxes. You lower taxes. That's what creates jobs. As a matter of fact, in 2004, whenever it was, the last tax adjustment, when the taxes were lowered, jobs were created. Revenue to the federal government, by the way, increased, too, because more people got up into brackets where they could pay taxes, so it works for everybody.
Christian Dorsey, Economic Policy Institute: Unfortunately, that's just wrong. We had in the 20 hundred's a jobless recovery, even though tax cuts were given predominantly to wealthier folks. But let's look at this in real terms. What we're talking about in the Senate is maybe increasing the payroll tax by a half a percent. What that would mean to somebody making $250,000 a year is an extra $1,250 in taxes over the course of the year. That's less than a Starbucks latte a day.
Jonathan Hoenig, Capitalistpig Asset Management: But they earn it. For one thing, it is their money and not yours to redistribute to anybody. This notion of "it's just another percentage." In 1935, social security started out, I believe as a 2 percent tax. That's 12 percent now. So to believe, oh, it just starts at 1 percent, it will stay like that and the rich are already rich, our own history does not bear that thesis out.
John Layfield, Nutritionmarket.com: This is a massive populist message. It's ok to say, hey, free pizza to everybody. The rich kids will pay for it. It is so stupid, it does not work. We are dealing with who's going to pay for this. We're not dealing with the problem, and that is healthcare is inefficient. All we're talking about is who is going pay for it. You want to the talk about jobs since 2000? We've got the biggest job loss since the great depression. If we are in a straight v-shaped recovery, it's going take 23 months to get the jobs back if we quit losing jobs today, which we're not going to do. You do this, u-shaped recovery; it will take five years to get the jobs back.
Tracy Byrnes, Fox Business Network: I think what bothers me the most about it, and to Christian as well, everyone is so glib about taxing the so-called wealthy, and the wealthy these days, it's not like they're multi-millionaires. The Obama administration is calling people who make not a lot of money, especially in areas like New York, California, those high expensive states, they're calling us wealthy, and meanwhile, we're living paycheck to paycheck, and these are the people they're calling wealthy. Why? Because they work. They work 24/7. They sacrifice time with their families. They build their businesses from the ground up, and now you're saying it's my responsibility? It's our responsibility to pick up the slack.
Jonas Max Ferris, Maxfunds.com: Because you're going to go on Medicare someday and somebody's got to pay for it. And what we've been seeing here lately is cuts to Medicare, which we need, cuts by the Democrats, which is amazing, frankly, not enough, and we're seeing tax increases to pay for Medicare and government health care, which we need. Because in the short run raising taxes is bad for jobs. Wayne is right. I'm worried about 10, 20, 30 years out when this whole system goes bust because we're not paying for it now. Frankly, the alternative to soak the rich is soaking the young, because that's what Medicare does. It makes young people pay for old people to get free government healthcare, and that needs to be stopped before young people get nothing later, and that's worse than rich people paying for it.
Real Lawbreaker: Uninsured or Government Forcing You to Buy It?
Jonathan Hoenig: This is a free country, but this whole Health care reform plan is based on force. Forcing you to buy insurance, forcing insurers to cover everybody, forcing you to pay for your neighbor's healthcare. I mean, lost in this is the individual's right to live his or her own life without being responsible for society at large. That's exactly what these plans trample, and it's terribly unconstitutional.
Jonas Max Ferris: My car will go 150 miles an hour, and I'm mad that I can't drive that fast and I have to pay for insurance. I don't need insurance. It's not my problem if I hit somebody. Get out of my way. It's a free market. The problem is we are already paying for each other. A good free market solution would be like if you don't get insurance, you're not allowed to go into a emergency room and not pay your bills and burden the system with your cost, but we don't do that because we don't want people dying in the streets, even though it's their own fault, frankly. So the alternative is force them to get insurance so they don't burden everybody else. That's the communist part. When you're not paying your bills and someone else pays it, which is the current system we're trying to fix.
Wayne Rogers: Understand that, but there's a basic flaw in the economic model, if I my say so. You've got a provider and somebody who is a receiver of those things. And you've got a third party payer, it never works. There's not a case in the history of any economics in any society where you have a third-party payer and someone who's paying the bills. It doesn't work at all. It will never work. I don't care whether it's the government or insurance companies in the old days, when you were in a doctor and small town, you took care of everybody, everybody took care of the doctor. You say, ok, I'll bring over a sack of potatoes, or do somebody else, and seriously, it was impersonal. This is impersonal, and it will never work.
Tracy Byrnes: You shop around for the prices of just about everything else you buy; you don't shop around for your insurance because of the way the current system is. So let's make it a more capitalist system. Let's allow people to go out, shop for their insurance as opposed to forcing me to buy something I don't want.
Christian Dorsey: Well, absolutely. It's not acceptable that you allow people to consume medical services while not paying anything at all. And what Wayne is talking about, it sounds like he was arguing for a robust public plan, where you eliminate this whole "third party" nonsense that corrupts the system as we have right now. But, you know, let's just look at it. You know, this is certainly not unconstitutional. This is exactly what we do with, as you mentioned, car insurance. Anyone who has a home has to pay homeowners insurance.
John Layfield: The one difference between this health care and car insurance is this. You have some points of morality in this. There's abortions of choice that may go through. I don't want to pay for. Put that as a rider. Also put a rider for Botox. Make it basic health service, and that's it. But what they're doing right now is a disaster that they're trying to pass through.
AIG Tough Guy May Want Out and GM Can't Find CFO Due to Government Meddling: Is Government Doing More Harm Than Good?
John Layfield: Absolutely. This pay czar himself said this week maybe there could be a revolt and a flight out of the government-backed institutions, which is exactly what's going to happen. Look at companies that are successful. Goldman Sachs, they pay their executives huge compensation based upon how they perform. They are doing great. Ford did not get the union-ordered concessions, did not get government money. They're outperforming General Motors. The Post Office created Fedex and UPS; the government cannot run an institution. They need to get out of business.
Jonas Max Ferris: Well, the exec activities aren't going to fly away because the government won't let AIG fly to their villa in the AIG corporate jet, because I don't understand why the government doesn't understand why $10 million in a compensation package is not enough to maintain your villa and your wine thing. Look, the government owns 80 percent of this company, so we can do whatever we want with it. We can't do it to Goldman because we dent get a piece that have money, even though we saved it from collapse. I don't like that we're micromanaging the salaries, I would rather own stocks, like the Chinese do. This is a stupid way to solve a problem, but unfortunately, this is what we're doing.
Wayne Rogers: I think that's — listen, when they talk about Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs is a conspiracy with the government. They're a fascist organization. They are supplying, you know, the guy who's the Secretary of the Treasury, then he goes back to Goldman Sachs. Meantime, he owns 800,000 shares of Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs gets bailed out by the government, then turns around and pays A.I.G. $16 Billion so they can pay themselves back. It's outrageous. The whole thing is outrageous. So take it down. Let them go through the bankruptcy court. That's what the law is for. They should have obey the law. If they can't make, it that's where they should go.
Tracy Byrnes: You're not going to get your money back. If you cannot retain top-quality people, what's the point? $10 Million is not enough?
Jonathan Hoenig: They've all left or talking about leaving, and honestly, sure, who would want to be put in their position? Who do they work for? Wayne, you call Goldman — you called Goldman Sachs a fascist organization. It's AIG. That's fascist, because he's there as a puppet. There he is as a puppet of the government.
What Do I Need to Know?
John Layfield: This government has created the mother of all carry trades. They have falsely inflated this economy through buying a mortgage-backed securities with interest rates low, the dollar low, asset prices too high. They stop buying in spring, rates go through the roof, asset prices come down. Their balance sheet gets overload, asset prices come down. This is a bubble that's going to burst, they're probably going use this TARP money.
Tracy Byrnes: ACORN has the bloody nerve to sue the government now because the government cut off funding to its organization. This is after they tried to give tax perks to prostitutes and pimps. They have to be kidding me! They don't have a leg to stand on with this case.
Jonas Max Ferris: Elliott Spitzer is giving a lecture on ethics at Harvard, and this is good for going to sully his name any further. Black Board, (BBB) software company that helps universities like Harvard put lectures online where you can watch one and make jokes without being rude, which would be the case during a real Elliot Spitzer lecture.
Jonathan Hoenig: The President is talking about climate change issues. We got this Copenhagen brouhaha coming up. Check out (GRN), The carbon fund. We get cap and trade, this could soar.
Wayne Rogers: Manny Pacquiao will win the fight Saturday night. Buy Phillipine Telephone (PHI).