DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So you're gonna do nothing but attack the messenger?

---

Attack you by offering others opinions on the matter?

---

Your reading comprehension is poor.
He clearly attacked Brian Moynihan the CEO of BofA.

movielover said:

---

This CEO 'debanked' President Trump after he left office, refusing to take over $1 Billion in deposits. A resident of liberal Massachusetts, he takes private jets to corporate meetings (hypocrisy).

---

---

You were the messenger in that situation but "cool story"

---

Your reading comprehension continues to be extremely poor.
Please do better.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So why would there be any need to LOWER THE FED FUNDS RATE?

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So why would there be any need to LOWER THE FED FUNDS RATE?

---

Lower Fed rates provide relief by reducing refinancing costs for short-term debt, primarily $6-7 trillion in treasury bills. Short-term debt rolls over frequently, often multiple times per year, which is why Federal Reserve rate changes (like the recent cuts) provide immediate relief on refinancing costs.

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

So much for any hope of investment analysis here.
I listened to that 6/7 stuff Xmas day with my grand nephew thank you very much!

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

So much for any hope of investment analysis here.
I listened to that 6/7 stuff Xmas day with my grand nephew thank you very much!

---

It's really hard to believe that there are people that actually graduated from the University of California at Berkeley who operate from such a poor knowledge base when it comes to BASIC economic principles.

It's embarrassing.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Thomas Del Beccaro, part-time Lafayette resident:

"Obama became the first president in United States history not to have a quarter reach 3% growth."

The Fed was wrong again (on GDP growth). Why?

TDB: "The U.S. has had 5 major income tax reforms in its history prior to 2025. All 5 times, the many naysayers said the reform would increase the deficit.

"All 5 times they were wrong because as a result of the reforms of the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2003-05, and 2017, the economy expanded at a higher rate than before the tax reforms - and tax receipts rose."

---

It's clear that you are terribly gullible to erroneous and flat-out false GOP talking points.
You've shown a pattern of this in your posts about the economy in this forum.
Let me help educate you.

If you actually bothered to look it up, quarterly GDP under Obama was in fact > 3% eight times during his Presidency.
I believe there were 4 quarters > 4%

In fact, GDP hit 5.0% in Q3 of 2014.




As for the budget deficit, it did not go down after 2017 tax reform.
It went straight up.

2017: $665
2018: $779
2019: $984
2020: $3,132



It would really help discussion in this forum if you were able to post from a solid knowledge base.
Instead of posting highly bogus political "talking points" that have nothing to do with reality.

Do better.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Thomas Del Beccaro, part-time Lafayette resident:

"Obama became the first president in United States history not to have a quarter reach 3% growth."

The Fed was wrong again (on GDP growth). Why?

TDB: "The U.S. has had 5 major income tax reforms in its history prior to 2025. All 5 times, the many naysayers said the reform would increase the deficit.

"All 5 times they were wrong because as a result of the reforms of the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2003-05, and 2017, the economy expanded at a higher rate than before the tax reforms - and tax receipts rose."

---

It's clear that you are terribly gullible to erroneous and flat-out false GOP talking points.
You've shown a pattern of this in your posts about the economy in this forum.
Let me help educate you.

If you actually bothered to look it up, quarterly GDP under Obama was in fact > 3% eight times during his Presidency.
I believe there were 4 quarters > 4%

In fact, GDP hit 5.0% in Q3 of 2014.




As for the budget deficit, it did not go down after 2017 tax reform.
It went straight up.

2017: $665
2018: $779
2019: $984
2020: $3,132



It would really help discussion in this forum if you were able to post from a solid knowledge base.
Instead of posting highly bogus political "talking points" that have nothing to do with reality.

Do better.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

y iSo why would there be any need to LOWER THE FED FUNDS RATE?

---

Lower Fed rates provide relief by reducing refinancing costs for short-term debt, primarily $6-7 trillion in treasury bills. Short-term debt rolls over frequently, often multiple times per year, which is why Federal Reserve rate changes (like the recent cuts) provide immediate relief on refinancing costs.

---

Thanks for the Ai answer.
That's obvious.

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

I'm doing the same with the NVIDA I bought over 5 years ago.
That's not the question. It's where it will be tomorrow, a month or when these people are dead. Oh boy.

*I'm at the tail end of the baby boomers. Those are my siblings dancing

---

Boomers with $5 million in Silver watching you get rekt in crypto pic.twitter.com/KkMNAHGCAB

— Not Jerome Powell (@alifarhat79) December 29, 2025

DiabloWags said:

---

This is actually pretty funny!

But after last week, Silver is probably the biggest short on the board.
Trading 89% above the 200 day MA will do that.

Only time that's been exceeded was 1979.

In the Hunt Brothers Squeeze . . . just before Jimmy Carter made a phone call to the COMEX and told them to put a stop to it because it was making him look bad. The Board decided to go 100% margin. Became liquidation only. But not before each one of the board members put massive shorts and bear spreads on. The rest is history.

$9.6 Billion in notional dollar volume on Friday in the SLV was the second highest in history since May 2011, just after the final peak. The action in SLV is clear evidence of a blowoff.

---