Showing posts with label The Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Report. Show all posts
Monday, May 30, 2011
Happy Memorial Day
The Report hopes that all of its readers had a great Memorial Day holiday. We also remember the men and women who have died in defense of the United States, freedom, and democracy. They made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and we are forever indebted to them.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Betting Against President Obama
Gold has been in the news lately. The University of Texas disclosure that it has been buying gold as part of its endowment investment put gold in the news. Further, the news of gold futures breaking the $1,500 an ounce mark put gold in the news, as did reports that investors were looking to gold due to the weakening of the U.S. dollar and the Standard and Poor's downgrade of the United States fiscal outlook to negative.
Why invest in gold? Gold is considered a safe-haven for investors. When the dollar weakens, when uncertainty rises, and when the economy weakens, the price of gold tends to rise. Essentially, the worse the financial situation becomes in the United States, the more valuable gold is. The same applies to silver and other precious metals.
Investing in gold, essentially, is a bet against President Obama or the Congress taking action that will greatly improve the United States economy. When President Obama suggests hiking taxes, doesn't want to cut spending enough, won't eliminate unneeded regulation, and continues to side with big unions instead of trying to create conditions that will create jobs, grow the economy, and grow revenues, it's a sign that the future of the country's economy is at risk. An economy at risk means that investors look to buy safe-haven investments. Gold has low risk, because it has intrinsic value. Unlike buying stock in a company, there's no risk of gold going bankrupt. You can't make something out of stock. On the other hand, with gold, you could make jewelry or decorations. Some people even have replacement teeth made out of gold.
Were the United States to have its Aaa rating cut or default on obligations, economic havoc would take place. Stocks would decline in value, the dollar would weaken, and then we would see job loss and greater unemployment leading to a cycle of economic slowdown and progress away from prosperity instead of progress towards it. Meanwhile, the price of gold would go up. If the United States dollar were to weaken by 10 percent today, another $150 an ounce would be added to the price of gold making it worth around $1,650. In our recent interview with a middle class American who has invested in gold, she alluded President Obama's failure to stop the weakening of the United States dollar:
Investors who are hoping to earn a profit by buying gold now and selling it later are essentially expecting President Obama to fail, and the price of gold to go up as a result, earning them a profit. So far, they've been right. When President took office, gold was under $1,000 an ounce. An investor who bought gold on the day of President Obama's inauguration could sell it now for a 50% profit. Betting against President Obama worked for over two years, and there's a good chance that it will continue to work for the remainder of his term in office.
Why invest in gold? Gold is considered a safe-haven for investors. When the dollar weakens, when uncertainty rises, and when the economy weakens, the price of gold tends to rise. Essentially, the worse the financial situation becomes in the United States, the more valuable gold is. The same applies to silver and other precious metals.
Investing in gold, essentially, is a bet against President Obama or the Congress taking action that will greatly improve the United States economy. When President Obama suggests hiking taxes, doesn't want to cut spending enough, won't eliminate unneeded regulation, and continues to side with big unions instead of trying to create conditions that will create jobs, grow the economy, and grow revenues, it's a sign that the future of the country's economy is at risk. An economy at risk means that investors look to buy safe-haven investments. Gold has low risk, because it has intrinsic value. Unlike buying stock in a company, there's no risk of gold going bankrupt. You can't make something out of stock. On the other hand, with gold, you could make jewelry or decorations. Some people even have replacement teeth made out of gold.
Were the United States to have its Aaa rating cut or default on obligations, economic havoc would take place. Stocks would decline in value, the dollar would weaken, and then we would see job loss and greater unemployment leading to a cycle of economic slowdown and progress away from prosperity instead of progress towards it. Meanwhile, the price of gold would go up. If the United States dollar were to weaken by 10 percent today, another $150 an ounce would be added to the price of gold making it worth around $1,650. In our recent interview with a middle class American who has invested in gold, she alluded President Obama's failure to stop the weakening of the United States dollar:
The Report: Some say President Obama is weakening the dollar and that sends gold higher and stocks lower. Do you agree?
Nicole: I bought gold when we were seeing a price of $1,000 an ounce and I still have the gold investment. I could make a profit of over $400 an ounce right now. Barack Obama doesn't seem committed to stopping it. However, the economy is recovering and so my strategy is to have stocks and to have gold because I think both will go higher.
Investors who are hoping to earn a profit by buying gold now and selling it later are essentially expecting President Obama to fail, and the price of gold to go up as a result, earning them a profit. So far, they've been right. When President took office, gold was under $1,000 an ounce. An investor who bought gold on the day of President Obama's inauguration could sell it now for a 50% profit. Betting against President Obama worked for over two years, and there's a good chance that it will continue to work for the remainder of his term in office.
Friday, February 4, 2011
RedState Statement
In an effort to get its content more widely distributed across the Internet, The Report began posting blog posts over at RedState. RedState claims to be "the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill." It's writing is led by Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson, but RedState promotes that "anyone, however, can write at RedState" and notes that "the best stuff gets voted on by the community and the best of the best gets put on the front page for the world to see."
Yesterday, The Report blogged about H. R. 3 and its failure to create jobs as well as the fact that the bill would prevent a pregnant person on government healthcare from saving the taxpayers money by opting for a cheaper abortion instead of having labor and delivery of a baby. The post doesn't go into the morality of the decision-making, but rather focused on H. R. 3 likely costing the taxpayers more money and killing, rather than creating, jobs. Obviously, the subject is controversial so we looked forward to interesting debate through comment posting. Unfortunately, a RedState moderator decided that if he didn’t agree with something, it simply shouldn't be there. This person, Neil Stevens, deleted our post content and in a childish act replaced it with a YouTube video, a comment saying "get lost," and changed the subject of our post to "Scram."
An explanation from Mr. Erickson on was requested via Twitter, but he failed to respond. We even asked again, and still he failed to respond. Our guess is that we were just too fiscally conservative for Mr. Stevens' liking, so he decided that censorship was the solution. While it is unlikely that Mr. Stevens' is a supporter of the Third Reich, his censorship is more similar to what the Nazis engaged in than what American freedom represents.
It has been our observation that the environment at RedState is not one where the interest lines up with what is best for the American people, especially on matters of fiscal conservatism. At RedState, members attack and flame anything that does not follow the Republican or Tea Party line. Praising President Obama's move to use supply-side economics to lower the national debt, for example, came under attack at RedState -- not because the idea was a radical far-left idea, but because the community there values attacking President Obama more than it values moving the country in the right direction where jobs will be created so Americans can afford to feed their families and pay their rent without relying on unemployment checks funded by the taxpayer.
As a result of our observations and yesterday's events, effective immediately, The Report will no longer be involved with RedState. We will remain open, however, to posting our content at other websites. We will continue our posting on Twitter, and welcome reader suggestions about other websites to post our content.
Yesterday, The Report blogged about H. R. 3 and its failure to create jobs as well as the fact that the bill would prevent a pregnant person on government healthcare from saving the taxpayers money by opting for a cheaper abortion instead of having labor and delivery of a baby. The post doesn't go into the morality of the decision-making, but rather focused on H. R. 3 likely costing the taxpayers more money and killing, rather than creating, jobs. Obviously, the subject is controversial so we looked forward to interesting debate through comment posting. Unfortunately, a RedState moderator decided that if he didn’t agree with something, it simply shouldn't be there. This person, Neil Stevens, deleted our post content and in a childish act replaced it with a YouTube video, a comment saying "get lost," and changed the subject of our post to "Scram."
An explanation from Mr. Erickson on was requested via Twitter, but he failed to respond. We even asked again, and still he failed to respond. Our guess is that we were just too fiscally conservative for Mr. Stevens' liking, so he decided that censorship was the solution. While it is unlikely that Mr. Stevens' is a supporter of the Third Reich, his censorship is more similar to what the Nazis engaged in than what American freedom represents.
It has been our observation that the environment at RedState is not one where the interest lines up with what is best for the American people, especially on matters of fiscal conservatism. At RedState, members attack and flame anything that does not follow the Republican or Tea Party line. Praising President Obama's move to use supply-side economics to lower the national debt, for example, came under attack at RedState -- not because the idea was a radical far-left idea, but because the community there values attacking President Obama more than it values moving the country in the right direction where jobs will be created so Americans can afford to feed their families and pay their rent without relying on unemployment checks funded by the taxpayer.
As a result of our observations and yesterday's events, effective immediately, The Report will no longer be involved with RedState. We will remain open, however, to posting our content at other websites. We will continue our posting on Twitter, and welcome reader suggestions about other websites to post our content.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Double Standard
Earlier today, we tweeted about the double standard that seems to exist in politics, where behavior that is deemed unacceptable for a conservative, is determined to be fine for a liberal. Yet, frequently we see those on the right engaging in behavior that just doesn't make sense. We see people on the right making personal attacks on President Barack Obama or Senator Harry Reid -- yet, they oppose the personal attacks against conservatives like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Effectively, some on the right think it's okay to defame or make personal attacks against the left, but that it isn't okay to do this to the right. They're half correct: it isn't okay to make personal attacks against, or to defame, the right. However, it's also unacceptable to do it against the left.
We believe in priding ourselves on objective commentary. We don't post about how President Obama is an evil atheist, because he has shown otherwise and even if he were an atheist, the Constitution says that's totally fine. We don't write about the sexual escapades of women running for the United States Senate, because once again, these personal attacks are not relevant to their positions on items that actually will affect the American people, such as taxation or job creation. We believe that true conservatives understand that being respectful is a part of adhering to true conservative values.
In our writing, there's no double standard. We will hold those on both sides accountable. We've called the left out of line, we've called the right out of line, and we're willing to call either side out again in the future.
We believe in priding ourselves on objective commentary. We don't post about how President Obama is an evil atheist, because he has shown otherwise and even if he were an atheist, the Constitution says that's totally fine. We don't write about the sexual escapades of women running for the United States Senate, because once again, these personal attacks are not relevant to their positions on items that actually will affect the American people, such as taxation or job creation. We believe that true conservatives understand that being respectful is a part of adhering to true conservative values.
In our writing, there's no double standard. We will hold those on both sides accountable. We've called the left out of line, we've called the right out of line, and we're willing to call either side out again in the future.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
No More Ads
It came to the attention of The Report that users were seeing ads that were paid for and placed through Google AdSense by organizations that were seeking to misinform readers. Both the far-left and the far-right were engaged in this anti-conservative, unethical behavior. As a result, The Report has discontinued its participation in this program so that readers are not subject to seeing misleading information as they look to The Report for objective information and opinion.
The original reason for the ads was to develop revenue that would allow The Report to invest in expansion and growth, such as obtaining its own domain name and acquiring use of a platform that would enable better integration with social networking and commenting. Additional revenue could then go towards providing authors with revenue for their hard work, and if revenue became large enough, donations to support causes or charities could be made. For now, this is on hold and readers of The Report can enjoy an ad-free experience.
The original reason for the ads was to develop revenue that would allow The Report to invest in expansion and growth, such as obtaining its own domain name and acquiring use of a platform that would enable better integration with social networking and commenting. Additional revenue could then go towards providing authors with revenue for their hard work, and if revenue became large enough, donations to support causes or charities could be made. For now, this is on hold and readers of The Report can enjoy an ad-free experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)