vpFREE2 Forums

XVP: Buy stocks now and get money to play VP!

#1

If you check history you will find that the day after the presidential election, the market has generally gone up, regardless of the party of the winning candidate. This may be due the stability of knowing who the president will be for the next 4 years.

···

From: "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] XVP: Buy stocks now and get money to play VP!
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:53:24 -0000

The consensus is that the markets will rally in the wake of the Bush
victory (and yes, I know that it isn't official at this moment, but
if Kerry doesn't concede today, and the demos start whining about
THIS election being fixed (it MUST have been; their man lost), the
demo party's image will be worse than the Communist party's).

If you have any spare cash, put it into common stocks in the
consumer goods, manufacturing, finance, and health care sectors.

The market rally should last through the end of the year, especially
if retailers have a good holiday season. After that, there will be
the traditional beginning-of-year selloff, so take your profits
before then.

I am anticipating a short-term gain of 5-7%, which is not bad for
two months. Remember, you heard it here first.

_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

#2

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen" <royalflush2222@h...>
wrote:

If you check history you will find that the day after the

presidential

election, the market has generally gone up, regardless of the

party of the

winning candidate. This may be due the stability of knowing who

the

president will be for the next 4 years.

True. I was referring to what I felt the market would be doing for
the next several WEEKS, though, through the holiday period.

As I'm sure you're aware, the ascension to the throne of a
Democratic administration has always been viewed by Wall street as
bad for business, and a Republican administration, as good. This is
particularly true now in view of Bush and Kerry's strong differences
in attitude toward taxation, capital gains tax, and business
regulation in general.

To put it another way, when the Demos fund their social programs,
it's always done on the backs of businesses, which is widely seen as
being "invisible" since we all know business=big giant evil
corporations that make their huge piles of money from the sweat of
small children laboring in their underground factories and coal
mines. Of course, when the corner hardware store can't hire new
employees, or shuts down altogether, or when the new shopping center
doesn't get built because the tax code penalizes investment and the
risk of capital, we don't hear about it. We just hear that tax
cuts "favor the rrrrrrrich". (of bloody COURSE they do; the rich pay
more taxes than the rest of us. Duh!)

Anyway, if you're an investor, or businessman, or both (as I am),
you should breathe a silent prayer of relief at the outcome of the
election. If you're a crack addict on welfare, well, dang it, that
monthly check from Uncle Sam ain't gonna be gettin' much bigger, so
you'll have to economize (buy the BIG jug of Thunderbird).

#3

Hope you can still do the Republican cheer when all the nuclear (not
nuculer) waste in the country is in Nevada. God help America.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"

<royalflush2222@h...>

wrote:
> If you check history you will find that the day after the
presidential
> election, the market has generally gone up, regardless of the
party of the
> winning candidate. This may be due the stability of knowing who
the
> president will be for the next 4 years.

True. I was referring to what I felt the market would be doing for
the next several WEEKS, though, through the holiday period.

As I'm sure you're aware, the ascension to the throne of a
Democratic administration has always been viewed by Wall street as
bad for business, and a Republican administration, as good. This

is

particularly true now in view of Bush and Kerry's strong

differences

in attitude toward taxation, capital gains tax, and business
regulation in general.

To put it another way, when the Demos fund their social programs,
it's always done on the backs of businesses, which is widely seen

as

being "invisible" since we all know business=big giant evil
corporations that make their huge piles of money from the sweat of
small children laboring in their underground factories and coal
mines. Of course, when the corner hardware store can't hire new
employees, or shuts down altogether, or when the new shopping

center

doesn't get built because the tax code penalizes investment and

the

risk of capital, we don't hear about it. We just hear that tax
cuts "favor the rrrrrrrich". (of bloody COURSE they do; the rich

pay

more taxes than the rest of us. Duh!)

Anyway, if you're an investor, or businessman, or both (as I am),
you should breathe a silent prayer of relief at the outcome of the
election. If you're a crack addict on welfare, well, dang it, that
monthly check from Uncle Sam ain't gonna be gettin' much bigger,

so

···

you'll have to economize (buy the BIG jug of Thunderbird).

#4

Right. But, what I've always found ironic is that all the major recessions/depressions of the last 150 years have occured while a Republican is in the White House. I don't have an explanation for this, I'm just pointing out that the "party of big business" hasn't been very good at its primary goal.

On the other hand, the Democrats might be called the "anti-war" party, but WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all occurred on their watch. So much for the "party of peace".

All mirth aside, a concern: aren't the ceiling-raising federal budget deficits going to force interest rates up? (They haven't yet, so maybe I dozed off during something relevant in ECON 101). Can really fight two wars at the same time, rebuild Iraq, and defend the homeland, all without raising taxes? Don't the wheels come off at some point? Just wondering.

John, who sees "W" in a chess match with the forces of evil, and doesn't like our chances.

···

As I'm sure you're aware, the ascension to the throne of a Democratic administration has always been viewed by Wall street as bad for business, and a Republican administration, as good. This is particularly true now in view of Bush and Kerry's strong differences in attitude toward taxation, capital gains tax, and business regulation in general.

#5

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "diversified_slave"
<diversified_slave@y...> wrote:

Hope you can still do the Republican cheer when all the nuclear

(not

nuculer) waste in the country is in Nevada. God help America.

Uh....have you ever driven across Nevada, either north-south or east-
west? There's more useless. empty land here than anywhere else in
the US. Nevada is the IDEAL place for a nuclear waste dump IMHO.

Doesn't it make sense to store the stuff in the driest, most
geologically stable, and emptiest place in the US? If it's a hundred
and fifty miles away from me and a mile underground, I don't think
it'll affect me much. The Yucca Mountain "issue" is only an issue
for those that don't understand basic science.

(The other day, I heard some impassioned blather from someone who
was vehemently opposed to the Yuccs Mountain waste dump because of
the grave danger it would pose to the health of Nevada residents.
When he was finished bloviating, he lit up a cigarette.)

#6

I live in Washington state, home of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
The most contaminated place in America. I am not against it all
going away, you can come get it if you want. Then you can watch your
ground water and soil substructure slowly but surely get
contaminated. Watch your children get leukemia. Your insight into
nuclear storage is somewhat narrow minded. A better place to store
it (according to the experts) is in the natural salt caves in west
Texas. Salt being a natural radiation insulator. Unfortunately, W
don't live in Vegas. But he does live in Texas. If I still smoked,
I'd light one up right now, knowing that I was harming no one but
myself.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "diversified_slave"
<diversified_slave@y...> wrote:
>
> Hope you can still do the Republican cheer when all the nuclear
(not
> nuculer) waste in the country is in Nevada. God help America.

Uh....have you ever driven across Nevada, either north-south or

east-

west? There's more useless. empty land here than anywhere else in
the US. Nevada is the IDEAL place for a nuclear waste dump IMHO.

Doesn't it make sense to store the stuff in the driest, most
geologically stable, and emptiest place in the US? If it's a

hundred

···

and fifty miles away from me and a mile underground, I don't think
it'll affect me much. The Yucca Mountain "issue" is only an issue
for those that don't understand basic science.

(The other day, I heard some impassioned blather from someone who
was vehemently opposed to the Yuccs Mountain waste dump because of
the grave danger it would pose to the health of Nevada residents.
When he was finished bloviating, he lit up a cigarette.)

#7

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "diversified_slave"
<diversified_slave@y...> wrote:

If I still smoked,
I'd light one up right now, knowing that I was harming no one but
myself.

SIGH! If only that were true.

Ask the families who have lost loved oned to pre-mature death.

.....bl

#8

Um....in Bush's head?

···

rockofjello333 <rockofjello333@yahoo.com> wrote:
[etc]...Doesn't it make sense to store the stuff in the driest, most
geologically stable, and emptiest place in the US? ...[etc]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#9

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

---
As I'm sure you're aware, the ascension to the throne of a
Democratic administration has always been viewed by Wall street as
bad for business, and a Republican administration, as good.

stock market ,on past history, does better under democrats, check the
history of the indices , dow ,s& p , nasdaq, nor does it care.
removing the uncertainty of a close election helped, oil goin below
$50 helped a lot more!!!!

You invest stocks on the big picture, not little
You find a growin industruy. GAMING .
Invest in the best companys,
IGT:70% of slot market 90% of VP,EZ pay TITO, slot club tracking
systems. Will steal a good idea, & settle out of court or buy you out
or both. 3/5 play VP for exmple. settle out of court with Action
Gaming & then made them a partner.

ShuffleMaster: Equipment & game developer

Station Casinos:have contracts to build 3 more indian casinos in Ca.
rumored to have been aproched to manage 3 more with Red Rock on the
way, plus owns more land in vegas with zoning for gambling than
anybody else. excelent mangement thats seems to know that top line
growth is as importent as a decrease in bottom line , maybe more.

Wynn: nobody does it better, NOBODY. waited in macau to build until
he got permission to extend credit to high rollers , the other
casinos being built cant yet, bought a big chunk of an english gaming
co to make sure he can get in if & when they allow "vegas style"
casinos and bought into the co. that owns the Monte Carlo in Monaco &
got permission to build only the second casono there.
Has 25k applicants for 9k jobs, the best want to work for him because
he treats them the best. High rollers will desert the Bellagio when
Wynn Lav Vegas opens.
   
Boyd Casinos: buying Coast Casinos was a steal, gives an even larger
precense in the local Vegas market. The Stardust & the land around it
is still under vauled, with Wynn opening the North strip should pop.
Even not, strong mangement the last few years has & will help growth.

Monarch Casino: name of the company that owns the Atlantis in Reno.
Family droped their ownership % from 79% to 36%. Besides makin the
stock more liquid, it allowed them to free up over 20 million dollars
that they had to use as collateral for bank loans. Expansion plans in
the works. If only one casino survies in Reno, it will be them.

All stocks above were better buys a year or two back, but still a
good bet to go up in the next 5 years or so no matter whats elected.
Example: Wynn stock as gone from a low of $9 to $58 last week. A year
from now the casino will have been open for 6 months, It might be
worth $120 then when evrybody sees how succesfull it is. or maybe
not, do your own research. make up yor own mind.

This is

particularly true now in view of Bush and Kerry's strong

differences

in attitude toward taxation, capital gains tax, and business
regulation in general.

???, not as much as you think, wish it was !!

To put it another way, when the Demos fund their social programs,
it's always done on the backs of businesses,

the last time corp tax rate was lowered was under clinton,
the first reform for capital gain treatment him too, ( not enough
yet) Business pay less now than ever. The working man gets the bill
no matters who we think is in charged.

Of course, when the corner hardware store can't hire new
employees, or shuts down altogether,

It means WAL-MART has come to town

or when the new shopping center

doesn't get built because the tax code penalizes investment and the
risk of capital,

Actually the tax code encorages overbuilding . between "enterprise
zones", accelerated depriciation , the ability to borrow money from
yourself or a company you control so you can reap benefits from both
ends results in a glut of construction, paticulry in warehouses &
business parks. Its possible to make more money from an empty failure
than a full success thanks to the tax code.

Anyway, if you're an investor, or businessman, or both (as I am),
you should breathe a silent prayer of relief at the outcome of the
election.

Based on past perfomances, not really. It dont really matter.
I have made money under both. The "reforms" are on page 1, the
new "strings attached" are on page 20 . AMT "reform " is an example

If you're a crack addict on welfare, well, dang it, that

monthly check from Uncle Sam ain't gonna be gettin' much bigger,

Bush has increased spending on social programs 6% a year since has
been in, sames as his daddy. (clinton only 3% , biggest reason for
the surplus he left us.)
The federal goverment increased welfare payments the last four years,
not lowered. (bastards) :wink:

so

you'll have to economize (buy the BIG jug of Thunderbird).

statement above is so kevin er Rockjello or whatever. If you cant
show compassion show a little class or come up with better joke.

EZ to be mean, hard to be tuff, harder yet to be kind.
Spell check still broke
I ALMOST miss Mr Veleck :wink: . Come back buddy!!!!
M J Perry

#10

Right. But, what I've always found ironic is that all the major
recessions/depressions of the last 150 years have occured while a
Republican is in the White House. I don't have an explanation for

this,

I'm just pointing out that the "party of big business" hasn't been

very

good at its primary goal.

One of the reasons is, at least for the 2000-2002 economic downturn,
that there's typically a 2 year lagtime for ecomonic policy to fully
take effect. Things don't just immediately change on Jan 20 when a
new president takes over. Any policy changes he may enact usually
don't go into effect for 6-12 months, and it's usually another 6-12
months after that before they make a real impact on the economy.

Look at our economy in the late 90's. It was slow but steady in the
mid-90's. Then the tech boom hit in the late 90's and the economy grew
too quickly, becoming overheated and setting itself up for a big
crash. The NASDAQ was a great indicator of this, soaring to a
rediculous 5000 in April 2000. By the time Bush took office in Jan
2001, the NASDAQ had already plummetted half of it's total value to
2500. It was a frieght train going south, and that simply can't stop
on a dime. 8 months later 9/11 hit and kicked the legs out from under
any recovery that might have been in the works.

It was 2 years into Bush's term (April 2003) before we got the freight
train slowed and turned into an upward direction. I for one think he
did a masterful job of getting the economy to rebound after the double
whammy of the tech bubble bursting followed by 9/11. We could have
tumbled into a 10-year depression like the 1930's if it weren't for
strong leadership and economic stimulous in the form of tax cuts.

Regarding the deficit, that's always been a simple product of the
economy. When the economy goes through a robust stretch, deficits get
paid down and (if the robust stretch lasts long enough) we end up with
a surplus. The opposite is equally true. When there's a bad stretch
in the economy, revenues drop, surpluses run out and we end up in a
deficit situation.

The key is how you respond to bad stretch in the economy. Being
afraid of running a deficit and therefore raising taxes is the worst
possible approach. Higher taxes shrink the ecomony (less money in
people's pockets to spend) while tax cuts grow the economy. It's the
basic WalMart philosophy... you generate higher revenues when you
lower prices on higher volume than you do by raising prices on lower
volume. It's even more effective in a broad economy where those extra
dollars in consumer's pockets spend multiple times. Customers buy
more, which causes busineses to hire more employees, which themselves
become consumers who buy more, and so on. Higher taxes have just the
opposite effect, and you spiral downward instead of upward.

Unfortunately there's no way to avoid deficits during such a "recovery
phase". But deficits take care of themselves if you are successful
in growing the economy into another robust stage. Increasing tax
rates by 10% won't raise enough revenue to pay off deficits. Raising
tax receipts (i.e. the volume of taxes transactions) by 30% will.

Those people berating Bush (or any other president) for the economic
results of the first 2 years of an administration are not
understanding the whole picture. The last 2 years and the next 4 will
provide a much better measuring stick.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#11

Took Macro & Micro last year (never too old, right?) and I found it
all very fascinating. Much of our economic history made more sense
to me after studying these subjects. How right you are! The next
four years will bear the fruit of the policies this administration
has implemented.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpanimal" <vpanimal@h...> wrote:

But deficits take care of themselves if you are successful
in growing the economy into another robust stage. Increasing tax
rates by 10% won't raise enough revenue to pay off deficits.
Raising tax receipts (i.e. the volume of taxes transactions) by
30% will.

Those people berating Bush (or any other president) for the
economic results of the first 2 years of an administration are not
understanding the whole picture. The last 2 years and the next 4
will provide a much better measuring stick.

#12

> Right. But, what I've always found ironic is that all the major
> recessions/depressions of the last 150 years have occured while

a

> Republican is in the White House. I don't have an explanation for
this,
> I'm just pointing out that the "party of big business" hasn't

been

very
> good at its primary goal.

One of the reasons is, at least for the 2000-2002 economic

downturn,

that there's typically a 2 year lagtime for ecomonic policy to

fully

take effect. Things don't just immediately change on Jan 20 when a
new president takes over. Any policy changes he may enact usually
don't go into effect for 6-12 months, and it's usually another 6-12
months after that before they make a real impact on the economy.

I posted a fairly long reply to John K, which Tom the Censor for
soem reason deleted, in which I mentioned that according to Milton
Friedman, the effect of a given economic policy move is not fully
felt for five years after the decision is made. People blamed
Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, when in reality he simply
climbed onto the bridge of an already sinking ship. Similarly, The
present state of the economy is more a result of the second Clinton
administration's policies more so than those of Bush.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpanimal" <vpanimal@h...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#13

A+

Mike

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpanimal" <vpanimal@h...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:
> Right. But, what I've always found ironic is that all the major
> recessions/depressions of the last 150 years have occured while a
> Republican is in the White House. I don't have an explanation for
this,
> I'm just pointing out that the "party of big business" hasn't been
very
> good at its primary goal.

One of the reasons is, at least for the 2000-2002 economic downturn,
that there's typically a 2 year lagtime for ecomonic policy to fully
take effect. Things don't just immediately change on Jan 20 when a
new president takes over. Any policy changes he may enact usually
don't go into effect for 6-12 months, and it's usually another 6-12
months after that before they make a real impact on the economy.

Look at our economy in the late 90's. It was slow but steady in the
mid-90's. Then the tech boom hit in the late 90's and the economy grew
too quickly, becoming overheated and setting itself up for a big
crash. The NASDAQ was a great indicator of this, soaring to a
rediculous 5000 in April 2000. By the time Bush took office in Jan
2001, the NASDAQ had already plummetted half of it's total value to
2500. It was a frieght train going south, and that simply can't stop
on a dime. 8 months later 9/11 hit and kicked the legs out from under
any recovery that might have been in the works.

It was 2 years into Bush's term (April 2003) before we got the freight
train slowed and turned into an upward direction. I for one think he
did a masterful job of getting the economy to rebound after the double
whammy of the tech bubble bursting followed by 9/11. We could have
tumbled into a 10-year depression like the 1930's if it weren't for
strong leadership and economic stimulous in the form of tax cuts.

Regarding the deficit, that's always been a simple product of the
economy. When the economy goes through a robust stretch, deficits get
paid down and (if the robust stretch lasts long enough) we end up with
a surplus. The opposite is equally true. When there's a bad stretch
in the economy, revenues drop, surpluses run out and we end up in a
deficit situation.

The key is how you respond to bad stretch in the economy. Being
afraid of running a deficit and therefore raising taxes is the worst
possible approach. Higher taxes shrink the ecomony (less money in
people's pockets to spend) while tax cuts grow the economy. It's the
basic WalMart philosophy... you generate higher revenues when you
lower prices on higher volume than you do by raising prices on lower
volume. It's even more effective in a broad economy where those extra
dollars in consumer's pockets spend multiple times. Customers buy
more, which causes busineses to hire more employees, which themselves
become consumers who buy more, and so on. Higher taxes have just the
opposite effect, and you spiral downward instead of upward.

Unfortunately there's no way to avoid deficits during such a "recovery
phase". But deficits take care of themselves if you are successful
in growing the economy into another robust stage. Increasing tax
rates by 10% won't raise enough revenue to pay off deficits. Raising
tax receipts (i.e. the volume of taxes transactions) by 30% will.

Those people berating Bush (or any other president) for the economic
results of the first 2 years of an administration are not
understanding the whole picture. The last 2 years and the next 4 will
provide a much better measuring stick.

#14

Incorrect.

I haven't seen or deleted any long reply to John Kelly.
If it was deleted, it was done by you, or more likely, it
never reached vpFREE at all.

In any event, as everyone knows, it's OK to touch on
off-topic subjects, but not OK to develop them into
extended discussions. Also, it's OK for members to
voluntarily implement this policy, rather than have the
Administrator blow the whistle.

Please use FREEvpFREE or private email for any
further discussions of the economy, stock market or
the election.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 6 Nov 2004 at 0:17, rockofjello333 wrote:

I posted a fairly long reply to John K, which ... the
Censor for soem reason deleted ...

#15

Given that at least a dozen of my posts have met this mysterious
fate, I naturally ascribed this latest disappearance to the same
causal factor; I did receive the reply, "Your message has been
posted." Therefore I assumed some human intervention after that
prevented its appearance. I apologize if this was, this once, not
the case.

However, you might understand if I presume something else than a
technical malfunction if my posts somehow don't make it onto the
board, given the gauntlet each and every one apparently must pass.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:

On 6 Nov 2004 at 0:17, rockofjello333 wrote:

> I posted a fairly long reply to John K, which ... the
> Censor for soem reason deleted ...

Incorrect.

I haven't seen or deleted any long reply to John Kelly.
If it was deleted, it was done by you, or more likely, it
never reached vpFREE at all.

#16

Given that at least a dozen of my posts have met this mysterious
fate, I naturally ascribed this latest disappearance to the same
causal factor; I did receive the reply, "Your message has been
posted." Therefore I assumed some human intervention after that
prevented its appearance. I apologize if this was, this once, not
the case.

It wasn't the case this once, or any other time.

Except for new member spammers, whose messages I
routinely delete, I have never deleted or shortstopped
anyone's post without informing them. This has happened
very rarely and usually occurred while the whole group
was moderated, and involved posting the message to
FREEvpFREE rather than vpFREE.

However, you might understand if I presume something else than a
technical malfunction if my posts somehow don't make it onto the
board, given the gauntlet each and every one apparently must pass.

Normally (99.23765% of the time) there isn't any gauntlet.

I'm not even involved in the message process unless a
message is initiated by a moderated member.

FYI, "Your message has been posted" is SOP for private
replies to vpFREE messages on the web as well as for posts
to vpFREE. I suspect that your missing posts were misdirected
(by you) to the poster you were replying to, and neglected
to include vpFREE as an addressee.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 6 Nov 2004 at 5:23, rockofjello333 wrote:

#17

I agree that there's a lot of barren land in Nevada,
but "geologically stable"? Nevada is one of the most seismically
active states in the country. Check out the following site.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/nevada/nevada_history.html

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "diversified_slave"
<diversified_slave@y...> wrote:
>
> Hope you can still do the Republican cheer when all the nuclear
(not
> nuculer) waste in the country is in Nevada. God help America.

Uh....have you ever driven across Nevada, either north-south or

east-

west? There's more useless. empty land here than anywhere else in
the US. Nevada is the IDEAL place for a nuclear waste dump IMHO.

Doesn't it make sense to store the stuff in the driest, most
geologically stable, and emptiest place in the US? If it's a

hundred

···

and fifty miles away from me and a mile underground, I don't think
it'll affect me much. The Yucca Mountain "issue" is only an issue
for those that don't understand basic science.

(The other day, I heard some impassioned blather from someone who
was vehemently opposed to the Yuccs Mountain waste dump because of
the grave danger it would pose to the health of Nevada residents.
When he was finished bloviating, he lit up a cigarette.)