I want say thanks to IB A Lying, Lexie L, DSK, Bimbo, Jimbo, Cuck, Cutie Pie Guy, Barfy Corn, and Dusty Lusty

I personally benefit by voting Trump (tax break for the top earners) but I'm also thinking beyond that to 'future sustainment' and investment opportunities in the new era we're approaching. Hillary is the smart safe choice will provide status quo stability to the financial markets. Trump's lack of knowledge and volatility would cause an instability that would cause speculators to go wild with an ensuing market collapse. I'm not voting for that. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Dear Sistine Chapel,

O.K., according to the headlines, USA markets were up on Monday because participants believed it was more likely Hillary would win the presidency, after the release of the Trump video. And they were down on Tuesday because participants believed there could be a blowout, with Democrats sweeping the House and the Senate too.

Yes, if Trump controlled all three branches of government, and, say, actually stopped trade with China, Mexico, etc. by raising tariffs sky high, he would throw us into a worldwide depression.

The effect of long-term Democratic Party control of all branches of government would be just as pernicious, although slower to manifest itself. Your fantasies of future "sustainment" and investment opportunities are a pipe dream. One example, the Democrats obsession with green energy would lead us down the same road as Spain and Germany, with gasoline and electric bills multiples of what they are now, and minimal effect on total worldwide CO2 emissions or global warming. As it is, even with a Republican Congress, the executive branch and Democrat-controlled state governments are holding up natural gas pipelines that would REDUCE CO2 emissions by displacing fuel oil and coal. The war on hydraulic fracturing and oil pipelines means that the next time there's an Arab or OPEC oil embargo, like 1973, we'll be fucked. And until then our trade deficit, and the resulting debt we owe to foreign governments, will continue to soar because of our oil imports.

Your capital gains taxes will go up under Hillary's plan, even though there's wide agreement that the government will collect LESS from the capital gains tax because people will delay or stop selling assets, in order to put off paying the higher tax. In other words, everyone and the federal government end up worse off with Hillary's plan to raise taxes on capital gains.

The marginal income tax rate on your personal income and any non-subchapter C businesses you own will go to 47.4% if you live in Texas, or about 58% if you live in California. This will diminish your appetite for risk taking and reduce the amount you could reinvest in any businesses you own. Then after you die, your estate will be required to give up to 65% of everything you still owned to the federal government.

Regulation will continue to increase. Along with higher taxes that means fewer jobs in the private sector will be created.

If you believe as I do that Hillary Clinton will win the election, then you should vote for Republican Congressmen and Senators. It's in your best interest. It's in the best interest of the United States of America.

^ lol ok? Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

^idiot

Dear Sistine Chapel,

O.K., according to the headlines, USA markets were up on Monday because participants believed it was more likely Hillary would win the presidency, after the release of the Trump video. And they were down on Tuesday because participants believed there could be a blowout, with Democrats sweeping the House and the Senate too.

Yes, if Trump controlled all three branches of government, and, say, actually stopped trade with China, Mexico, etc. by raising tariffs sky high, he would throw us into a worldwide depression.

The effect of long-term Democratic Party control of all branches of government would be just as pernicious, although slower to manifest itself. Your fantasies of future "sustainment" and investment opportunities are a pipe dream. One example, the Democrats obsession with green energy would lead us down the same road as Spain and Germany, with gasoline and electric bills multiples of what they are now, and minimal effect on total worldwide CO2 emissions or global warming. As it is, even with a Republican Congress, the executive branch and Democrat-controlled state governments are holding up natural gas pipelines that would REDUCE CO2 emissions by displacing fuel oil and coal. The war on hydraulic fracturing and oil pipelines means that the next time there's an Arab or OPEC oil embargo, like 1973, we'll be fucked. And until then our trade deficit, and the resulting debt we owe to foreign governments, will continue to soar because of our oil imports.

Your capital gains taxes will go up under Hillary's plan, even though there's wide agreement that the government will collect LESS from the capital gains tax because people will delay or stop selling assets, in order to put off paying the higher tax. In other words, everyone and the federal government end up worse off with Hillary's plan to raise taxes on capital gains.

The marginal income tax rate on your personal income and any non-subchapter C businesses you own will go to 47.4% if you live in Texas, or about 58% if you live in California. This will diminish your appetite for risk taking and reduce the amount you could reinvest in any businesses you own. Then after you die, your estate will be required to give up to 65% of everything you still owned to the federal government.

Regulation will continue to increase. Along with higher taxes that means fewer jobs in the private sector will be created.

If you believe as I do that Hillary Clinton will win the election, then you should vote for Republican Congressmen and Senators. It's in your best interest. It's in the best interest of the United States of America. Originally Posted by Tiny

Hey Sissy Chap,

Tiny just gave you an intelligent analysis of the impact of a Clinton win. This is your thread. Try to respond in an intelligent way. That means more than a superficial claim about financial market stability. The ball's in your court. This is your chance to show some depth. Try not to blow it by babbling about "socialist planning".


Hey Tiny,

One of the things I worry about, given the vast expansion of federal regs into every niche of our lives and businesses, is how this is compounding the opportunities for corruption. Hildebeest is already taking advantage of such opportunities. Here in Western PA there are rumors of all kinds of backroom energy deals going on. Coal isn't dead. Private equity interests are trading on inside info and assurances from the Clinton folks on how they will be regulated by the EPA and other agencies before they buy energy assets or invest in energy projects. It goes without saying that those privy to such insider info/assurances are big Clinton donors. Hildebeest doesn't really want to put coal and frackers out of business, as long as ownership is transferred into compliant hands that will pay to play!

Hey Fisting Chaps, why did you include me in the OP? You don't pay attention, I've already posted on this. I don't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. If Trump goes down, I hope he takes the party with him. I am not a Republican. I have never voted for a Republican for President in my life. And I have voted for only one Democrat, George McGovern in 1972. All my votes have been Libertarian or Constitution Party. I miss Harry Browne. If the Republican Party is destroyed in this election - good! Maybe a real Party with balls that truly supports liberty will rise in its place. Not that we will have any country left after Hillary. But just in case.

The only reason I'm voting for Trump is that he is not Hillary, and to be honest, I'm not sure I want him to be my first Republican vote at this point. And you people are deluded if you think Kasich or some other weak, RINO, Establishment Republican could beat Hillary. The Clinton's play the game of politics and personal destruction better than anyone. Trump is the only one with the balls to fight back. He is the only one with the courage to tell the truth about the Clinton's. But he had baggage, as they all do, and they used it effectively against him. They have the media on their side. We needed a candidate who demanded media coverage. Trump was the only one. And they destroyed him, with a lot of help from him, to be honest.


So thanks for trying, Donald, and sayonara Republican Party. And good riddance.

Hey Fisting Chaps, why did you include me in the OP? You don't pay attention, ....... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

She "assumes" conclusions based on what she does "see" ... NOTHING!

I'm sure she "assumed" all those who voted against Obama were "racists" and therefore "Republicans" also.

I'm not a "Republican" either, which I have posted on here for years! In fact I have been a Democrat longer than she's been alive....if being "brain dead" is being "alive"!

Dear Sistine Chapel, - I appreciate the Dear salute. It fits you well.

O.K., according to the headlines, USA markets were up on Monday because participants believed it was more likely Hillary would win the presidency, - it's been likely Hillary would win for a good while now. her % chance has been 80 or greater for at least 6 months. Slight market fluctuations are just the normal day to day oscillation at this point. My perspective is the Trump video only makes a difference in the polls not the markets. after the release of the Trump video. And they were down on Tuesday because participants believed there could be a blowout, with Democrats sweeping the House and the Senate too. No one really expects the Dems to take the House it's a long shot and the Senate is still leaning Red. So some may speculate it's the concern but the reality is as I've stated it's just normal day to day churn nothing to get excited about. Relax Tiny I'm a pro at this

Yes, if Trump controlled all three branches of government, and, say, actually stopped trade with China, Mexico, etc. by raising tariffs sky high, he would throw us into a worldwide depression. - BINGO now you're starting to get it. Which is exactly why I said he must not win because it's (by and large) what he's advocating. The problem is Republicans still control the Congress despite current polling. So if we assume they maintain that control and this clown wins then it's exactly the reason I've advocated you shouldn't vote for him. See I don't need to write a book to explain what the Status Quo means. If you're bright enough you get it. Republicans can basically deny Hillary (for awhile at least) through procedural processes and obstructionism just as they did Obama. So all you've done is prove my point especially given current realities of Congressional majorities.

The effect of long-term Democratic Party control of all branches of government would be just as pernicious, although slower to manifest itself. It's proven the country does better when Dems are in control. In fact Obama just brought this country back from the worse depression since the 30's. The last time republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency it led to a global recession and collapse of global markets. Your fantasies of future "sustainment" and investment opportunities are a pipe dream. No they're not. One example, the Democrats obsession with green energy would lead us down the same road as Spain and Germany, - nope different governments, different populations, different needs, and the GDP's are no comparison. with gasoline and electric bills multiples of what they are now, and minimal effect on total worldwide CO2 emissions or global warming. As it is, even with a Republican Congress, the executive branch and Democrat-controlled state governments are holding up natural gas pipelines that would REDUCE CO2 emissions by displacing fuel oil and coal. This is nothing but a refined right wing talking point based on Emotion and not Science. The international panel on climate change has scientifically proven that Green or Renewable energy significantly reduce CO2 emissions as opposed to all the Carbon sources. You can't win this scientific argument and if you want the raw numbers I can provide those. In fact let me provide some data. Natural Gas emits between 0.6 and 2 lbs of CO2 equivalent per kWh. Coal between 1.4 and 3.6 CO2; compare that to Wind which emits 0.02 to 0.04; Solar 0.7 to 0.2; Geothermal 0.1 to 0.2; Hydro-electric 0.1 to 0.5. So keep thinking like you do and we'll all be dead and no one will be around to debate any of this. It's no surprise that China recently (last month in fact) has joined the global community to help reduce CO2 emissions. The two largest economies (US and China) and all their scientists agree it's a pretty bad problem so just what are you silly republicans talking about? Absolutely nonsense is what you're talking about. The war on hydraulic fracturing and oil pipelines means that the next time there's an Arab or OPEC oil embargo, like 1973, we'll be fucked. - hahahaha we're fucked now because of fracking has nothing to do with another OPEC led oil embargo. Sure it's good temporarily for US based Oil companies but at what expense? Again the environment. You're a fool if you believe fracking is safe and there are no short or long term consequences. The price of oil dropped because OPEC slowed production due to US shale oil and fracking and they've applied great pressure on the US and it's hurt our economy to a large degree. Fracking is literally taking a blow-torch to your own face. Better yet to your neighbors face. It's ridiculous we're even having this discussion. And until then our trade deficit, and the resulting debt we owe to foreign governments, will continue to soar because of our oil imports. -

Your capital gains taxes will go up under Hillary's plan, even though there's wide agreement that the government will collect LESS from the capital gains tax because people will delay or stop selling assets, in order to put off paying the higher tax. :lol_:2 guess you skipped the part where I explicitly stated I would do better personally voting for the Republican party's platform of less taxes for those with higher incomes and investment sources. In other words, everyone and the federal government end up worse off with Hillary's plan to raise taxes on capital gains. Right now we pay 20% on investments held more than year and that rate will be preserved under her plan if the investment is held at least 6 yrs so in all yes the rate will go up if I don't want to hold that investment but it should be taxed on a sliding scale. Lots of details behind her plan but I will continue to do business as usual.

The marginal income tax rate on your personal income and any non-subchapter C businesses you own will go to 47.4% if you live in Texas, or about 58% if you live in California. This will diminish your appetite for risk taking and reduce the amount you could reinvest in any businesses you own. - No sir this is investing principals 101 for me. I'm not gonna stop working, eating or earning. Only 'woe is me' older people who are risk averse think like you. I may not like the tax depending on income level but I'm also not going to stop risk taking. I'm a risk taker it's what I do. Then after you die, your estate will be required to give up to 65% of everything you still owned to the federal government. - lol - All depends on the size of the estate so stop being hyperbolic and I'm not concerned with this. The day I get close to 45, 55, or 65 then maybe it will be a concern. ;-)

Regulation will continue to increase. Along with higher taxes that means fewer jobs in the private sector will be created. Fewer jobs happen during good & bad times as selfish companies look to take advantage of poverty stricken countries / economies. You can excuse it as a regulation issue but it's nothing but a republican talking point. Most companies 'offshore' jobs at higher rates even while they're making windfall profits. Everyone knows that.

If you believe as I do that Hillary Clinton will win the election, then you should vote for Republican Congressmen and Senators. It's in your best interest. It's in the best interest of the United States of America. It's why i said maintain status Quo. Hillary will win, the Senate is up for grabs but the the House is still Republican. Every argument you've made goes back to my summary of Status Quo. There's literally nothing you've said that I didn't already know and it's why I summarized it as Status Quo as opposed to the destruction Trump would bring. ;-) I may be arrogant in many respects but I will refrain from calling myself brilliant. lol Originally Posted by Tiny

^ See comments in red. and lol at Dusty Lusty apparently he was impressed with your rehash of republican talking points. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

^ See comments in red. and lol at Dusty Lusty apparently he was impressed with your rehash of republican talking points. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

But you're a complete tool. A fool, and a troll. A professional? A professional Sap Sucker!!!

Let me guess... BAMBULLY hurled insults.

Let me guess... BAMBULLY hurled insults. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Just the truth, here's another fact, you're a cocksucking pig.

Hey Tiny,

One of the things I worry about, given the vast expansion of federal regs into every niche of our lives and businesses, is how this is compounding the opportunities for corruption. Hildebeest is already taking advantage of such opportunities. Here in Western PA there are rumors of all kinds of backroom energy deals going on. Coal isn't dead. Private equity interests are trading on inside info and assurances from the Clinton folks on how they will be regulated by the EPA and other agencies before they buy energy assets or invest in energy projects. It goes without saying that those privy to such insider info/assurances are big Clinton donors. Hildebeest doesn't really want to put coal and frackers out of business, as long as ownership is transferred into compliant hands that will pay to play! Originally Posted by lustylad

Lustylad, I kind of hope you're right, that Hillary is a corrupt liar with some common sense that's not going to do everything she said she would when she adopted the Bernie Sanders platform. Sanders said he would ban all fracking. Hillary said she'd let regulatory agencies decide, and also said effectively that would shut down fracking in the USA. She left herself some room to backtrack.

Do you have any idea how much she's gotten from green energy types versus fossil fuel companies? I'd guess green energy companies could outbid oil, gas and coal companies. I'm not proud of this, but I invested in a green energy company that donated to politicians, including Senator Hillary Clinton. In my defense, I only owned 1% or 2% and had "0" participation in management. And I lost money. Anyway, we might get back 50% of the cost of a project through government grants and by selling tax credits. And then government regulations required utilities to pay above market rates for the electricity we generated. When you've got those kinds of potential incentives to buy off politicians, you're going to contribute a lot more in than your typical oil and gas or coal company.

Btw, my earlier thoughts about Sistine Chapel's post were more along the lines of what will happen if Democrats do indeed, as he suggests, come to dominate all branches of government for many years, not what will happen if Hillary wins. For better or worse, it's looking more and more like "when" Hillary wins instead of "if" Hillary wins.

So once Trump loses what happens to the Republican party? This is a fascinating circus show he's putting on and again the reason I said only a pure certified 100% idiot with no foresight or vision would vote for the guy. Yall had 16 candidates to choose from and instead of doing the smart sensible thing you literally chose the dumbest guy in the room.

Once this is all over Trump will go back to working his businesses and being all about himself as usual. However, what happens to the Republican party afterwards? In all likelihood he's going to lose and cost the Republicans the Senate, maybe even the House; which in turn would ensure Democrats can then ram rod through their agenda with no interference from Tea party loons or Republicans. You say you hate Hillary but all your doing (by voting Trump when it's clear he has no path) is enabling her.

I for one love this. Trump has embarrassed himself, destroyed your party for generations and has given the Dems more leverage to future power. Only an idiot doesn't understand this and that's why I've said all along that if you care about your political issues long term you should vote Hillary short term. It takes a real intellectual to understand and comprehend what I'm advocating. Trump will lose and go play golf, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kaisich would have lost and kept fighting for causes they've fought for most of their lives. You folks just don't get it but of you like it then I LOVE IT Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Actually the dumbest guy in the room is you. I don't think Trump was necessarily in it to win it. I have two theories about Trump. One he was given the opportunity by the Democratic Party to run and create chaos for the Republican Party, because Hillary Clinton needed as much distraction as she could get being she has so much on her plate. Or Trump has so much distain for our Political System in general that he ran to expose both parties for their collusion and nefarious agendas. Trump being a non career politician was successful at laying waste to all of the GOP candidates, that was especially evident the way Jeb Bush bailed out because Trump pushed him around like a Red Headed Step Child. Since his GOP nomination he's been hammering away at Hillary Clinton and that came full circle in the second debate when he exposed both Bill and Hillary. Bill for his infidelities and sexual assaults on women while he was Governor of Arkansas and even during his presidency and Hillary's bullying tactics to shut these women up. So no Trump isn't stupid he just has more guts than those that oppose him.

Jim

Dear Sistine Chapel,

Apparently we agree on several points. I'll address those we disagree about.

Yes, the correlation between a Democrat in the White House and higher GDP growth is valid for perhaps the majority of time periods that you'd select. And there's a much stronger correlation between an NFL/NFC win in the Super Bowl and stock market performance. Monetary policy, the business cycle, demographics, who controls Congress, and improvements in technology play a roll. Political decisions in preceding administrations affect the economy far into the future. Divided government may be better for the economy than having either Democrats or Republicans in power, or at least you saw Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama spending like drunken sailors and/or implementing unwise policies when their parties controlled both houses. I'd rather look at countries and very long periods. And the USA, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore which have smaller governments (as % of GDP) and rule of law have outperformed all others in the long term, except for a few small tax havens and oil rich countries. At present, Democrats favor growing government more than Republicans. And I believe Republicans on average are more interested in promoting fair and wise application of laws and regulations.

Carbon emissions in the last few years in the USA are the lowest they've been since the 1960's. I looked for electricity generation figures to compare to CO2 emissions, and could only find data back to 1990. Anyway, since 1990 net electricity generation has increased from 2,800,000 million Kw-hr to about 4,100,000 million Kw-hr. The USA has done a much better job in reducing CO2 emissions than anyone dreamed we would decades ago, and the biggest reason was natural gas. Removal of President Carter's price controls, followed much later by improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techonogy have vastly increased the amount of natural gas we produce and consume. Burning gas produces about 40% less CO2 than coal for an equivalent amount of energy. Natural gas also displaces fuel oil for heating, much of which is refined from imported oil. Respectfully, in obsessing about renewables, you're letting the goal of perfection get in the way of actually doing good.

You are mistaken about hydraulic fracturing. It's safe for the environment. With respect to groundwater contamination, which still is uncommon and not a big deal, the culprits are bad cement jobs and mechanical problems in the wellbore that allow communication between deeper producing zones and shallower aquifers. With respect to earthquakes, it's injection of salt water into disposal wells at high rates. I do believe this should be better regulated, although since I don't live in Oklahoma, the only place where this appears to be a problem, it's not my place (or yours) to criticize if the citizens there are willing to take the risk.

Increased oil production in the USA and oil from Canada have played a big role in reducing our reliance on foreign oil. We don't have to invade the Middle East and spill lives any more. Domestic oil and gas E&P had a significant positive effect on GDP growth. And again it decreases our trade deficit and the amount we must borrow from foreign countries to finance it. Imported oil is the largest component of the trade deficit.

Unlike you, I am not busting my ass or taking as much risk to make money, now that the federal government is taking 43.4% of my marginal dollar instead of 35%. Add in employment taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and state income taxes and the number is substantially over 50% btw. I am paying less in income taxes because I'm making less income.

As to selfish companies looking to take advantage of poverty stricken countries/economies, ask the workers in those economies what they think about that. The World Bank and IMF would take my side on that instead of yours.

I won't confirm or deny any investments and the status quo is just fine for now (as I maintain) and will be 4 yrs from now in all likelihood. Your semi-diatribe was nice but I would like to understand your rationale for voting Trump. That would be awesome to understand. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

I guess you haven't the heard the news today and HSBC's RED ALERT

http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-...market-2016-10

Actually the dumbest guy in the room is you. I don't think Trump was necessarily in it to win it. I have two theories about Trump. One he was given the opportunity by the Democratic Party to run and create chaos for the Republican Party, because Hillary Clinton needed as much distraction as she could get being she has so much on her plate. Or Trump has so much distain for our Political System in general that he ran to expose both parties for their collusion and nefarious agendas. Trump being a non career politician was successful at laying waste to all of the GOP candidates, that was especially evident the way Jeb Bush bailed out because Trump pushed him around like a Red Headed Step Child. Since his GOP nomination he's been hammering away at Hillary Clinton and that came full circle in the second debate when he exposed both Bill and Hillary. Bill for his infidelities and sexual assaults on women while he was Governor of Arkansas and even during his presidency and Hillary's bullying tactics to shut these women up. So no Trump isn't stupid he just has more guts than those that oppose him.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

As usual both of your theories are wrong as fuck. Trump's running is nothing more than a joke gone too far.

Dear Sistine Chapel,

Apparently we agree on several points. I'll address those we disagree about.

Yes, the correlation between a Democrat in the White House and higher GDP growth is valid for perhaps the majority of time periods that you'd select. And there's a much stronger correlation between an NFL/NFC win in the Super Bowl and stock market performance. Monetary policy, the business cycle, demographics, who controls Congress, and improvements in technology play a roll. Political decisions in preceding administrations affect the economy far into the future. Divided government may be better for the economy than having either Democrats or Republicans in power, or at least you saw Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama spending like drunken sailors and/or implementing unwise policies when their parties controlled both houses. I'd rather look at countries and very long periods. And the USA, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore which have smaller governments (as % of GDP) and rule of law have outperformed all others in the long term, except for a few small tax havens and oil rich countries. At present, Democrats favor growing government more than Republicans. And I believe Republicans on average are more interested in promoting fair and wise application of laws and regulations.

Carbon emissions in the last few years in the USA are the lowest they've been since the 1960's. I looked for electricity generation figures to compare to CO2 emissions, and could only find data back to 1990. Anyway, since 1990 net electricity generation has increased from 2,800,000 million Kw-hr to about 4,100,000 million Kw-hr. The USA has done a much better job in reducing CO2 emissions than anyone dreamed we would decades ago, and the biggest reason was natural gas. Removal of President Carter's price controls, followed much later by improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techonogy have vastly increased the amount of natural gas we produce and consume. Burning gas produces about 40% less CO2 than coal for an equivalent amount of energy. Natural gas also displaces fuel oil for heating, much of which is refined from imported oil. Respectfully, in obsessing about renewables, you're letting the goal of perfection get in the way of actually doing good.

You are mistaken about hydraulic fracturing. It's safe for the environment. With respect to groundwater contamination, which still is uncommon and not a big deal, the culprits are bad cement jobs and mechanical problems in the wellbore that allow communication between deeper producing zones and shallower aquifers. With respect to earthquakes, it's injection of salt water into disposal wells at high rates. I do believe this should be better regulated, although since I don't live in Oklahoma, the only place where this appears to be a problem, it's not my place (or yours) to criticize if the citizens there are willing to take the risk.

Increased oil production in the USA and oil from Canada have played a big role in reducing our reliance on foreign oil. We don't have to invade the Middle East and spill lives any more. Domestic oil and gas E&P had a significant positive effect on GDP growth. And again it decreases our trade deficit and the amount we must borrow from foreign countries to finance it. Imported oil is the largest component of the trade deficit.

Unlike you, I am not busting my ass or taking as much risk to make money, now that the federal government is taking 43.4% of my marginal dollar instead of 35%. Add in employment taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and state income taxes and the number is substantially over 50% btw. I am paying less in income taxes because I'm making less income.

As to selfish companies looking to take advantage of poverty stricken countries/economies, ask the workers in those economies what they think about that. The World Bank and IMF would take my side on that instead of yours. Originally Posted by Tiny

You're saying a lot Tiny but not saying much at all. I've told you before and it's simple. Let me sum up your journal by repeating: "Let's maintain the Status Quo"