zdo

TradeWinds, After your general idea, I wasn't expecting such a detailed answer . Anyways - thank you very much TradeWinds

maybe this one is just another (generic trade) release The Excavator: Whether It Is The Terror Crisis Or The Debt Crisis, The Solution Is Always A Super Dictatorship

JEHs why don't you just go ahead and tell it like it is instead of beating around the busch There are many, many ways traders combine to get to these percentages. However in my experience a major chunk of the losers get there with two decisions/actions Decision #1 starting undercapitalized (as others have noted) / overleveraged (same diff) Decision #2 choosing to hold on to one particular position for it to 'come back' instead of taking (stop) loss

Tams, If you have time, could you please define / amplify how you are using the terms "slow fractal mean" and "fast fractal market" ?? Thanks

Tradewinds, Real time example to see if I get what you're saying - the EJ has quickly returned to a cluster of 'means' (see rectangle of attached 180 minute EURJPY) Are you saying you'd play it to go back to 114 ? Thanks zdo

ahimsa That term will not be found much in mainstream media. SuperCongress is a term coined by the fringe media who are (justifiably) a little apprehensive about its implications. Slippery slope – starts as a ‘commision’ to pre-reconcile “cuts” and dealing with the debt… then gets used for something else… in a few years… What kind of supercongress is happening in Italy?

Is the debt ceiling deal supposed to be some sort of a cruel joke? Is this what the American people have been waiting months and months for? The "debt ceiling deal from hell" is a complete and total fraud. Barack Obama will not need to worry about the debt ceiling again until after the 2012 election, and no "real" spending cuts will happen until after the 2012 election. The way the political game in Washington D.C. is played today, if you don't get something right now, you probably will never end up getting it. The Republicans have traded a massive debt ceiling increase right now for the possibility of very skimpy budget cuts in the future. Meanwhile, this deal establishes a new "Super Congress" that threatens to fundamentally alter our political system (and not in a good way). The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle. That is a complete and total lie. So what about the $917 billion in "immediate" spending cuts that the Republicans are getting as part of this deal? Well, they aren't really spending cuts at all. Rather, they are spending caps. Basically what is happening is that future spending increases are being cancelled and our politicians are selling that to us as "spending cuts". What is even sadder is that the $917 billion is spread over ten years and the vast majority of the "cuts" are in the latter years. For example, even if you consider these to be "spending cuts" (which they are not), the deal calls for only about $25 billion in "cuts" in 2012 and only about $47 billion in "cuts" in 2013. 25 billion dollars is far less than one percent of the federal budget, so needless to say these "cuts" are not very impressive at all. Okay, so how about the second stage of the deal which will produce "spending cuts" of between 1.2 and 1.5 trillion dollars? Well, yes, these would actually be spending cuts and they would be spread over 10 years. Near the end of the year, the new "Super Congress" (more on that in a minute) will submit a proposal to Congress which could cut spending over the next 10 years by a total of up to 1.5 trillion dollars. If the recommendations of the "Super Congress" are not implemented, than "automatic" spending cuts of $1.2 trillion will go into effect over the next 10 years. However, there are some very important things to remember about these "spending cuts". First of all, none of these "automatic" spending cuts would even go into effect until 2013. The face of American politics will be dramatically different by then, and there is absolutely nothing that makes these cuts binding on Congress. As Gregg Easterbrook recently noted, Congress can cancel spending cuts at any time and for any reason.... By projecting the only tangible savings — which aren’t even specified, but are merely caps — into the future, the plan allows Congress to cancel them. In 2012 or any future year, Congress will say, “We can’t have caps this year because of the [iNSERT ANY WORD CHOSEN AT RANDOM] crisis. We are postponing action till next year.” Rinse and repeat. As I have written about so many times before, the U.S. national debt is completely and totally out of control. This was supposed to be the moment when at least some members of Congress were finally going to get serious about our exploding debt. Unfortunately, our politicians have sold us down the river once again. Even if the best case scenario happens (which it never does) and Congress sticks to this deal for the full ten years (which is about as likely as hell freezing over), the "savings" that this deal would produce are quite pathetic as Peter Schiff recently explained.... The Congressional Budget Office currently projects that $9.5 trillion in new debt will have to be issued over the next 10 years. Even if all of the reductions proposed in the deal were to come to pass, which is highly unlikely, that would still leave $7.1 trillion in new debt accumulation by 2021. Our problems have not been solved by a long shot. Keep in mind that Congress can change this deal whenever it wants. So nobody should get excited about these "spending cuts". After all, when was the last time that "future spending cuts" actually materialized in Washington? The reality is that neither political party seems to want to do much to cut government spending. So the band will play on and the can will get kicked even farther down the road. When Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Today, it is $14,342,358,440,969.10. But what this "debt ceiling deal" will do is it will give the congressional leadership of both parties much more power. The new "Super Congress" that this deal establishes will be granted "extraordinary new powers" that regular members of Congress do not possess. For example, The Huffington Post says that any new legislation produced by the "Super Congress" will not be able to be filibustered or amended.... Under the reported framework, legislation the new congressional committee writes would be fast-tracked through Congress and could not be filibustered or amended. So who will be a part of the "Super Congress"? The members will be chosen by the leadership of both parties. So anyone that is not part of the "establishment" is not likely to be included. The following is what U.S. Representative Ron Paul had to say about this new "Super Congress".... "Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership." It is this new "Super Congress" that will decide what will be in the package of "spending cuts" that will be voted on by the end of the year. Regular members of Congress will be frozen out of the process. On December 23rd, Congress will be required to vote up or down on the spending cuts proposed by the "Super Congress". Regular members of Congress will not be allowed to amend the legislation in any way, and no filibusters will be permitted. Does that sound very "American" to you? The more that one examines this "debt ceiling deal", the worse it looks. Meanwhile, many Democrats are running around and acting as if their lunch money was just stolen. For example, the following is what Politico is reporting that U.S. Representative Mike Doyle said about this deal.... “We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Democratic congressman Emanuel Cleaver was even more dramatic when he proclaimed that this deal "looks like a Satan sandwich". Well, this deal is a total nightmare, but not for the reasons that Cleaver is suggesting. This deal opens the door for more rampant deficit spending, and nearly all of the "spending cuts" are put off until after the 2012 election. Basically, the Republicans got taken out behind the woodshed and beaten to a pulp on this one. Any Republican that is trying to proclaim that the debt ceiling deal is a "great victory" is a complete moron. But in the end, it really does not matter which political party gets a "victory" out of all this. What matters is that our federal government is still steamrolling toward a date with financial oblivion. If this is the best that our politicians can come up with, we are absolutely doomed. Michael Snyder

Thanks ... surprised you forgot to mention the golden mean... Also, some might argue with you that the best qualified mean is the opening price ... instead of the closing price... anyways re the "many interpretaions" and One more time - just for you Tams :haha: "For commonality, “the mean” in the question below is your own ‘mean’ – a place where price has ‘reverted back to’. That means it’s not specifically or necessarily a central tendency (like an average) or a measure of valuation (like a value area) or whatever … it’s simply whatever your ‘mean’ is." Thanks for any help with the question you got for us.

Question setup: For commonality, “the mean” in the question below is your own ‘mean’ – a place where price has ‘reverted back to’. That means it’s not specifically or necessarily a central tendency (like an average) or a measure of valuation (like a value area) or whatever … it’s simply whatever your ‘mean’ is. There are piles and piles of threads in trading forums on reversion to the mean methods, techniques, strategies, and tactics. Even though traders don’t typically use the term, there are also piles and piles of threads on ‘excursion from the mean’ methods, techniques, strategies, and tactics. For the most part these are described as new trend if price has just properly crossed through your ‘mean’ or resumption of trend after correction if the ‘mean’ held, etc. etc. but in essence they are about excursion from 'mean’ It may literally fall into the stupid question bin and if you don’t use a ‘mean’ or make trading decisions or executions at your ‘mean’ as described above, then please ignore question. And thanks... Now finally the question - Do you have something that is distinct / atypical that you do when price comes back to your mean?

Have you witnessed or concieved all the different ways to 'fail' or are you just going off what your own experiences? Having been in the retail and discount brokerage business for a while (in almost a different lifetime now), I can tell you those stats are more accurate than not. I personally think it’s somewhere just under 80% overall - but the ‘reasons’ for the high rate of failure are many and the timelines for all the failure are also widely varied – so it could be 90% +. You are incomparable… and be careful how you take that Be advised that with this thread you also just added to your overall risk of joining that %

Click here for details http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/08/debt-crisis-is-trojan-horse-to-cause.html

Wasn't really talking about the issue of "quantifying" / coding with the use of the word "mathematically" I brought this up because in my experience a large percentage of ‘normals’ reading about and looking for ‘divergences’ literally see price as strong and the indicator as weaker… when actually it was price action (of closes in rsi, macd, etc) in the interim btwn the price peaks that created the ‘inferior’ indicator reading. 'Mathematically', the interim action could have produced an equivalent, non diverging, extreme in the indicator and the trading signal still be valid. ie In the debate about the value or efficacy of ‘divergence’ , absolute indicator readings are just as valuable as divergence readings…context… It's not as 'mathematically' correct and it looks like he's backing use of indicators out of the mix altogether , but choicecap1 was getting at the same concept early in the thread with "Divergence is nothing more that price rejection faster at certain level,so if you can identify other indications of where to expect price to have this type of action(sop/resist) then you dont even need the indicator to find it." Do or Die, I don’t think we’re really arguing here. For example you said, “In fact, Relative Strength in context of RSI means simply the measure where a stock is trading in reference to its past range.” which to me is ~= to “‘mathematically’, … divergences are, in large part, created / made possible by the form, extent and duration of the most recent correction before the current thrust which is exhibiting indicator divergence …” “form, extent and duration” would also establish limits on movement away from moving average that create MACD divergences, etc etc.

:rofl:

Do or Die, Why RSI length of 10? Thanks.

PIMCO | Investment Outlook - Kings of the Wild Frontier

Just in case you got scared / 'concerned' by the administration's "distrastrous consequences" theme of late and the incessant reinforcement by the mainstream media or Just in case you been drinking up the media message and / or you just want to blame Bush (and all that goes along with that)... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bush-vs-obama-facts-and-observations ... if Bush was a traitor (and he was), then what does that make Obama? :helloooo: Lies to everyone and broken promises (mostly to his dupes), etc, etc. = ...more credibility 'gap' ? http://www.cnbc.com/id/43943482

Taking the diff’s btwn manual and automated several layers further - In much manual trading, even cognitive ‘work’ with “all the parameter fuzzinesses that our grayware handles…” isn’t logical. ‘Worse’ yet for attempts at coding, beyond that we also have the issue of subjective probability accessed not from the cognitive but from adaptive utilization of the ‘soft’ data of emotions. You can actually train yourself to consciously benefit from awareness of common cause and special cause and ambiguity aversion,etc. Knightian uncertainty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia etc etc Let’s see you code that sht, bit! :rofl: ( …jerk gotta scoot so finished this up tersely instead of nicely )

Tams is absolutely correct about “if … logic in plain English, then…” – Theoretically. But practically ?? A quick, incomplete example - It is ‘logical’ for 1) a certain condition to fall within a certain range to be ‘true’, 2) for that ‘trueness’ range to vary in size and location (still under logical but suddenly overly complicated conditions) … practically, the 'coding' practicality falls off rapidly and precipitously...

:confused: ‘mathematically’, seems many divergences are, in large part, created/made possible by the form, extent and duration of the most recent correction before the current thrust which is exhibiting indicator divergence …

The mindset of being an automated systems developer is quite a bit different from the mindset of being a discretionary / rule based systems trader. The best system developers I know would consider manual trading to be a complete waste of time. They find a niche edge and become masters of testing and accurately reading performance reports and real time tweaking instead of masters live ‘screen time’ trading. After a while at it, I finally realized I had to spend months as one, then months as the other to get desired results – but maybe that’s just me. After almost 25 years of trading full time, I still look at some methods and fantasize about automating it but realize how extremely arduous it would actually be to even try – all the while without any guarantees of acceptable results. Been there done that – more than once. Also have been blessed to develop some automation that is still standing the test of tme... Also, finding a programmer to get into a shared vision with you / really understand what you are trying to accomplish, and make the wholehearted commitment required has odds about like playing the ‘big game’ lotteries. The huge majority of programmers, including most 'do it yourself'ers, can’t even begin to think and code into the uncertainty and fuzziness of varying multiple weights / influence of parameters that is required. It takes a great deal of work to fully automate most methods – largely because it’s very arduous to correctly program all the parameter fuzzinesses that individual's grayware handles quite a bit more routinely. Basically, the practiced eye can discern and unconsciously use information, but not be able to quantify it in code well enough where it works the same way automated as it does manually for close to the same percentage of signals. Generally most beginners find that code can generally handle setups ok, but anything but the simplest of context conditions can quickly become a very 'disencouraging' activity… In the ‘distribution’ of methods, the great middle of systems ie analysis methods most traders use are the ones most difficult to automate. Very generally speaking, the systems that can be ‘easy’ to automate are in the tails. Both are ‘simple’ types of systems. They are either in or near the lower win rate tail (think long term trend, etc.) or they are in or near the high win rate tail (think HFT, etc.). The real challenge programmatically for both of these types of ‘easy’ automation is proper risk management. Without automated sizing too, the whole development effort can be a waste, etc etc. … am not jaded and I still love automation. Just trying to be real here :missy: hth

re "why is he a fool.........? " While I do assert that he has a serious character disorder, I wasn't in any way insinuating that he's a fool. It started out titled the "Full Transcript of 7/25/11 Speech"... but by the time it was done it had become the "Fool Transcript of ... " The fools were people like me who listened to it ... and were fooled by it...

"But only if …. ???" was a serious, real question. I haven’t come up with a high quality answer yet. But a partial answer would have something to do with if they experience it as perfect, dependent origination. An answer from a more ‘western’ world view would go something like “...being clear that we must learn to view ourselves accurately, and yet without negative judgment before we become free to move ahead or make any self sustaining changes in our lives.” Kurt Wright.

Thank you all for the posts. I still don’t know. Here are some thoughts and more questions … Attitude as an anticipatory act to create state and orient way self is going to engage upcoming experience. Belief is what you do when you don’t know. If you know, belief is not needed. Could belief be a limited, specialized form of attitude? Seems belief can support attitudes, but can attitudes support beliefs? Can attitude condition how much conviction and attachment one has to belief(s)? Still don’t know the difference.

Fool Transcript of last nights speech: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans. For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, through compromises, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program, a seed crystal for my oboma care program, were simply added to our nation’s credit card. As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – to spend ? on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off because a major portion of my support comes from government unions and workers . These emergency steps also added to the deficit – never let a crisis go to waste you know. Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on your loans. Your loans you never even asked for. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Did I just say that with a straight face? Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t mean to scare you. Oh what the heck, I do want to scare you. The purpose of this whole speech is to scare you again and again. Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. Even though I should, I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions. This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. Fiat money and its inevitable inflation and the It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now. Even though I’m doing all I can to cripple small businesses and innovative startups. This approach is also bipartisan. While many of the outright socialists in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough moderates in name only will be willing to accept them if the burden is 'fairly' shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many republicans in name only in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks. The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. Never mind that they would pass it through anyway and wouldn’t really contribute any more than they are now. And because nothing, nothing nada, not a thing, is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families. Cuts would not place a greater burden on working families. Working families pay their own way. So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for? Yes, it was ‘republicans’ that gave you those tax breaks you never asked for. Us good commies never ask for tax breaks. That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all, myself and my supporters exempted of course, want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. Never mind that I still have us mired in new wars all over the place we have no business in. Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. I’ve used this lie successfully before so I’m going to keep repeating it. None. Let me repeat that lie one more time. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. They do not share enough. I must redistribute. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. Never mind many of them are getting second passports and moving funds out of here as silently and quickly as possible. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this: “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan, who also had the same bosses as I do. But today, many representatives in the House, elected by and representing people who have had enough of my bosses, refuse to consider this kind of ‘balanced’ approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Socialist and Republicrats in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate. Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most of the stupid people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. Understand this lie – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. Please understand this you stupid little americans. By borrowing more money we can pay our current bills. If our current bills are paid then we can buy more support by spending more of your money. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, the bosses have demanded it. Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. I don’t understand why it can’t continue to be routine when it serves my purposes. Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, certain House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach. They have this notion that we actually need to do something about this situation now instead of letting it get much worse. If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. Scared a bunch of you dumbasses with that lie, didn’t I? For the first, well not quite, but who’s really counting, time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Never mind that what we do isn’t really the determining factor in whether our rating is downgraded or not. Really it’s my bosses who decide that. Also, don’t bother to check how corrupted and totally innaccurate those ratings have become. If my bosses think it’s time, interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis, like we don’t already have one – one caused almost entirely by Washington. That would be a first. I hope I’ve scared you dummies into compromise. Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We need a much steeper concentration of power up here people. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits, even though we have no intentions of doing it; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. Scared yet? I said putting the economy at risk! This kind of talk helps me and my media pass the blame when things do get worse and they will get worse. I promised delusional hope and change and I’m going to deliver – even if I have to crush the constitution and those who believe in it. But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach, and that could really mess up things in my upcoming re-election bid. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. I need to scare my dependent base a few more times this speech. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. Never mind the economy is already held captive. That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. Don’t tell anyone but the way we’ve been running it is even worse! It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Actually we’ve been slowly playing it for decades now, but we won’t go into that now, when we really need to. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. In other words, government really is the best source of jobs and livelihoods. Even though we been increasingly doing it for almost a hundred years now, we can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare. One of the most upfront guys I know Tim Geithner says Congress now has one week left to act and there are still paths forward. The Senate and only the Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment, funded out of your equity by the way, on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months. Course now if we actually cut spending by a whole bunch, we wouldn’t have to go through this again in six months either. Was I supposed to say that? I know that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Fat chance of me really doing that… oops. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise, that means do it my way, in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise that a narcissist can sign. If I go directly against what the peaple of this nation who are actually paying the bills want and don’t sign something they really want, it won’t be my fault if. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republicrat leaders and I have found common ground before - because the Republicrats have the same bosses I do. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us become even more progressive. And more broke. I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and the stupid citizens who sent them there and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. Statism, individual freedoms, redistribution of wealth, and socialism to name a few. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Snick snick. I personally don’t, but yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. That line works every time. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a code word for keeping us in control. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see bought and paid for leaders (tongue is cheek) like me, who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be. The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. Well maybe they did. They elected us. But anyway, I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message. Never mind that it was ‘compromise’ that got us into this mess in the first place. America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy, yes that’s another code word for socialists, made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.” Still, I seriously would like my way here, which is more control and a free ride through the election and don’t mind manipulating the hell out you dummies to get it. History is scattered with the stories of those like who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. Only at time like this would I ever remind you that we remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union. That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet your obligations by pay debts you the actual people would never had incurred, but because we can still come together as one nation. Normally I wouldn’t say this but I got to work the dumbies in this country tonight so Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America, with apologies to my muslim brethren and enlightened elitist atheist friends of course.

... taking it from the sublime to the ridiculous now... The market can not tell you if you are a nobody or now. Nobody is a nobody...