are y'all better off than you were 4 years ago ?

[KristyHall]

Hey Capvin, guess what? I'm a strict Constitutionalist. And my opinion still stands.

That statement reminds me of a song I LOVE. It showed up on a Native Rights CD called " In the Spirit Of Crazy Horse"

I think Pearl Jam originaly did that song but I love this version better




And the rivers shall open for the rightous,
And the rivers shall open for the rightous,
And the rivers shall open for the rightous, some day.

I was walking with my brother
And he wondered oh how I am.
I said what I believe in my soul
Aint what I see with my eyes
And there's no turning back this time.

I am a Patriot. I love my country, because my country is all i know. I want to be with my family, people who understand me. I've got no place left to go. I am a Patriot.

I was walking with my sister
She looked so fine i said whats on your mind.
She said I want to run like the lions
Released from the cages, realsed from the rages buringing in my soul tonight.

I am a Patriot. I love my country, because my country is all i know.

And i ain't no communist,
And i ain't no socialist.
And i ain't no capitalist,
And i ain't no imperialsit.
And i ain't no democrat,
Surely aint no republican neither,
I only believe in one party and that is freedom.

I am.
I am.
I am.
I am a Patriot. I love my country, because my country is all i know.

And the rivers shall open for the rightous,
And the rivers shall open for the rightous,
And the rivers shall open for the rightous, some day.

Some day.
Some day.
Some day.
Some day.

 

[Linn Bee]

I would say most everyone is better off now than they were four years ago, despite a political campaign to try and convince us otherwise.

Thank you for answering for us all, but the question was am I better off now than I was four years ago.

The answer is no. The cost of food, gas, fuel oil, and most necessities has increased while my income has actually gone down.

Despite higher property taxes, insurance, City fees, etc. I haven't raised my rents in the past four years. Still, the poor employment situation means that some of my tenants are unable to keep up with the rent and fail to pay their sewer bills (as per contract) which then become my responsibility to pay. In 35 years, I have not had this type of (or so many) problems with the good, hardworking people I rent to.

My youngest child is having a hard and stressful time trying to make enough to pay necessities with both DS and DIL working as much as they can. I'm paying for 'extras' like physicals and dental work that the grandchildren need.

We live simply - no vacations (in 43 years), no cable TV, no cell phone, no nights out, aging vehicle, large garden, preserving our produce, raising rabbits and chickens - so that we are able to help, but it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet now that we are both retired - he for 18 years, me for 8.

Because of our situation, none of Bush's tax cuts benefited us. . . neither did any of Obama's. Now that the election is over, I'm expecting another loss in the stock market (DH's pension), more tenant problems, and a higher tax burden for those of us in the (lower) middle-class.

Don't speak for me and mine when you say I'm imagining all this merely because of election rhetoric. The worst of it is I don't foresee any changes in the near future that will make things better and I fear it will be much worse for a while.

Smart Red

 

[Capvin]

Linn Bee I have no doubt that, for you, everything you expressed is true, EXCEPT, if over the last four years you experienced a loss in the stock market you had to be invested in North Korea. In this country the market increase has been fantastic and the expectation is that it will continue to soar in 2013.

 

[Linn Bee]

Linn Bee I have no doubt that, for you, everything you expressed is true, EXCEPT, if over the last four years you experienced a loss in the stock market you had to be invested in North Korea. In this country the market increase has been fantastic and the expectation is that it will continue to soar in 2013.

Thank you Capvin, but I don't need you to speak for me or my situation.

When DH retired he received $92,000 as a lump sum in lieu of monthly pension payments. As of November first that amount is near $62,000. No, not all lost in the last 4 years, but neither is it yet up to its November 1, 2008 level.

That's the current cash value - with the higher cost of everything (except real estate, we lost a hunk there) the spending power of that $62,000 isn't worth $62,000 in 2008 dollars.

Please explain how that is being better off.

Smart Red

Edited to correct date from 2007 to 2008

 

[mom'sfolly]

Obama took office in January of 2009. Since then the NASDAQ and Dow are both up about 60%. And yes it was in a free before he took office. Lots of people lost lots of retirement money.

 

[hemet dennis]

I agree. BTW O'Rielly is insanely intelligent, well educated, and motivated. I think this over the top behavior and inflammatory statements he makes is purposeful and calculated. Rush on the other hand may very well not be republican at all, or at least I hope not. I would rather like to think Rush doesn't believe some of the vile things he says. Like you I also watch fox and listen to republican radio in an effort to get all sides, but I can only take so much shouting and straw men.

Cross referencing statements and citing sources are your friends.



reported by washinton post

At a dinner benifitting inner city school children.... Washington Post (4/15/03), " O'Reilly was trying to fill the time before a singing group connected with the charity, called the Best Men, was set to perform, and quipped: "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps." "
Bad joke or inflammatory statements

(I do not watch the view, I do not agree with some of the things they say on there, i do not agree with them leaving the set, but O'Rielly was being inflammitory and condescending)

And from "Extra!"


"Two months before O'Reilly's "hubcaps" remark, he used a racist slur on the air. Searching for a word to describe someone who assists immigrants crossing the border, O'Reilly came up with "wetback" (2/6/03). The incident was explained away by Fox officials as an unfortunate gaffe (New York Times, 2/10/03), but the Allentown, Pa.Morning Call (1/5/03) had O'Reilly using the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: "O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out 'the wetbacks.'" O'Reilly denied making the comment (Washington Post, 2/17/02), but the reporter stands by his account.

Though he calls his show a "no-spin zone," O'Reilly's response (CNBC, 4/26/03) to the "wetback" incident was a blatant, if feeble, exercise in spin--and an attempt to blame his guest:


We were talking about border patrol and the problems they were having. I'm going, "What's the jargon? What's the jargon? We got coyotes, right? Coyotes and we got wetbacks. Is that what they call them? Is that what they call them?" All right? And the guy goes, "Yeah. The wetbacks are the slang for the people who come over and the coyotes are the slang for the people who get paid to bring them over." That was the context.



A transcript of the show demonstrates O'Reilly's highly imaginative memory. Here's how the interview really went: In support of his proposal to militarize U.S. borders, O'Reilly remarked, "We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes--they're not going to do what they're doing now, all right, so people aren't going to die in the desert." He then offered the "last word" to his guest, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D.-Texas), who did not address O'Reilly's slur at all, but instead tried to explain why he thought using the Army to patrol the borders was a bad idea. (O'Reilly reneged on his promise to give Reyes the last word, interrupting him with a rebuttal.)

The actual "context" of O'Reilly's slur is a history of making derogatory, stereotyping comments about people of color. Just a few examples:
Wetback is the term that the border patrol people used.
* During an interview for Stuff magazine (11/02), O'Reilly opined that "the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." O'Reilly later insisted (New York Daily News, 10/10/02), "There was no malice intended. It was just in jest."

* During a segment (2/9/00) about black athletes suing over the minimum academic standards for college admission, O'Reilly commented: "Look, you know as well as I do most of these kids come out and they can't speak English."
A true statement
* Criticizing Democratic politicians who met with Rev. Al Sharpton, which O'Reilly compared to meeting with white supremacist David Duke: "Why would it be different? Both use race to promote themselves." (3/16/00) O'Reilly also equated the Black Panthers with Duke (1/11/99): "You were promoting your people, black people, and he's promoting white people. So what's the difference?"
Is there a difference ?
* "We have black leaders in this country who blame everything on whitey, everything's the system's fault, and that gives a built-in excuse to fail and act irresponsible. 'Oh, I can't get a job. Whitey won't let me,' or 'I can't get educated. The teachers are bad, so I'm going to go out and get high and sell drugs. That's the only way we can make money here.' You know what I mean? And it's a vicious cycle" (6/8/99).
Sounds like he was listening to Rev. Wright Obamas preacher.
* "Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality--because that's the reason the family's breaking apart--alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem--and I'm broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won't reject it" (2/25/99).
97% of blacks voted for Obama but if 97% of whites had voted for Romney all you would hear right now would be stories of how racist whites are.
* "I've been to Africa three times. All right? You can't bring Western reasoning into the culture. The same way you can't bring it into fundamental Islam" (5/6/02).
True
After the "wetback" incident, O'Reilly wrote in a newspaper column (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 3/1/03) that Americans "must realize that racial demonization is now organized and well-funded, and it will not end until everyday people begin condemning it." He wasn't talking about himself, though; he was referring to critics who label him a racist. "







from :Media Matters" :

O'Reilly Whitewashes Anti-LGBT Record Of Romney National Finance Co-Chair




Bill O'Reilly interviewed Romney campaign national finance committee co-chair Frank VanderSloot yesterday and whitewashed VanderSloot's record on LGBT issues. Discussing criticism of VanderSloot's record that appeared on KeepingGOPHonest.com, O'Reilly suggested the Obama campaign engaged in "political terrorism" and "slimed" VanderSloot. But O'Reilly failed to press or even mention the substance of VanderSloot's record on LGBT issues.
VanderSloot told O'Reilly that KeepingGOPHonest.com had "said that I hated gay people and that I was anti-gay." O'Reilly then interjected: "You're anti-gay. So anybody who was buying your product who was gay said I'm not going to buy my products from this guy." VanderSloot responded: "We have a lot of people we work with, who we deal with in the business world that are gay." And O'Reilly responded: "So they basically slimed you. They smeared you." And that is as close as O'Reilly got to confronting VanderSloot with the substance of VanderSloot's anti-LGBT record.
According to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, VanderSloot and his company, Melaleuca Inc., launched a billboard campaign in Idaho that attacked Idaho Public Television for airing a documentary called "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In Schools." Idaho Public Television said the documentary "chronicle[d] how some public and private schools in several states are dealing with gay issues in the classroom, specifically name-calling and harassment." But VanderSloot's billboards attacked the documentary, asking "Should public television promote the homosexual lifestyle to your children?"
Via Buzzfeed, here is an image of one of the VanderSloot-funded billboards (one that was defaced with the word "YES!" to alter its meaning):

[Buzzfeed, 5/15/12]
VanderSloot also attacked a reporter who had written that the Mormon Church and Idaho Boy Scout officials were sheltering a known pedophile. VanderSloot printed a full-page newspaper ad that called the reporter a "homosexual." The ad also said:

Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout's position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church's position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism. We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman's motives. It would be wrong to do. The only known facts are, that for whatever reason, Zuckerman chose to weave a story that unfairly, and without merit, paints Scout leaders and church leaders to appear unscrupulous, and blame them for the molestation of little children. That too, is wrong and the editors of the Post Register should not have allowed it.​

Zuckerman told Rachel Maddow that as a result of the ad, his then-boyfriend lost his job, and Zuckerman himself started getting violent threats:

There was a tremendous impact on me both personally and professionally. Personally, it was really hard when my boyfriend, at the time, came home and said, "I don't have my job anymore. They know I'm gay. They know about my relationship with you. They don't want me there anymore." And it was really hard for him. He actually got sick soon afterwards and was in bed for a month. I didn't know how we were going to pay the bills. It was really hard when people started leaving notes on my doorstep, when somebody kept calling in the middle of the night threatening ((Censored for BYC.)) That was -- I mean, that was really terrible. And then professionally, it became much harder to do my job because, yes, Idaho Falls was buzzing about my sexual orientation . And, you know, when I tried to talk to people, they would say things like, "Oh, I can't talk to you. You're a homosexual . We don't associate with that."​

Zuckerman also said that before the ad was published "I hadn't told anybody on my beat that I'm gay and for good reason, because I was worried they wouldn't talk to me."
But you didn't learn any of that from O'Reilly. He was too busy advancing Fox's agenda of shielding Vandersloot from any criticism.
UPDATE: In 1999, VanderSloot promoted his anti-LGBT message on O'Reilly's own show.
On the August 11, 1999, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, VanderSloot discussed the Idaho Public Television documentary that he was attacking on billboards. According to the Nexis transcript, during the segment VanderSloot asserted that the documentary was using taxpayer money to bring "the homosexual lifestyle into the classroom and introduce it to our children as being normal, right, acceptable, and good an appropriate."
VanderSloot also went on to say the film was "certainly not a documentary. It's propaganda"
VanderSloot further said: "We can teach our children -- and adults, too, for that matter -- to be tolerant of people and to love all people and not to judge them, but we don't have to, in the process, teach them that all behavior is acceptable, especially when it's contrary to the moral standards of our community and nation." He added that "tax dollars should not be used to bring this standard of morality to our children."
And VanderSloot told O'Reilly: "Well, I think we can teach our children not to persecute and to be kind and to be tolerant and not to make fun of kids and not to hate kids -- or adults, for that matter -- without teaching them that the behavior of somebody else is acceptable. We can love people regardless of their behavior or certainly regardless of their parents' behavior."

Still looking for the inflammatory statements.



From a compilation of people:



O'REILLY: "I make sure, personally make sure, that throughout the week we have equal representation of conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican. OK, I mean, if you have been watching the show I've been doing this now into our thirteenth year, and we have voices, and they're equal."

-- In October of 2012 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 185 guests, 152 Republicans, and 33 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In September of 2012 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 155 guests, 123 Republicans, and 32 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.1 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.6 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In August of 2012 O'Reilly had 23 shows, with a total of 199 guests, 157 Republicans, and 42 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.8 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.8 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In July of 2012 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 180 guests, 153 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In June of 2012 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 174 guests, 140 Republicans, and 34 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.0 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.7 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In May of 2012 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 190 guests, 159 Republicans, and 31 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.5 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In April of 2012 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 172 guests, 145 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.3 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In March of 2012 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 186 guests, 152 Republicans, and 34 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.6 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In February of 2012 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 176 guests, 150 Republicans, and 26 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In January of 2012 O'Reilly had 19 shows, with a total of 163 guests, 139 Republicans, and 24 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.3 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In December of 2011 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 172 guests, 145 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.25 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.35 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In November of 2011 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 171 guests, 145 Republicans, and 26 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In October of 2011 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 168 guests, 145 Republicans, and 23 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.0 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In September of 2011 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 174 guests, 147 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.6 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In August of 2011 O'Reilly had 23 shows, with a total of 200 guests, 164 Republicans, and 36 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.1 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In July of 2011 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 171 guests, 148 Republicans, and 23 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 8.1 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.0 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In June of 2011 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 189 guests, 161 Republicans, and 28 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.3 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In May of 2011 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 176 guests, 150 Republicans, and 26 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.8 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.1 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In April of 2011 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 180 guests, 152 Republicans, and 28 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.3 Democrats per show, that is not balance, and it's not even close.



-- In March of 2011 O'Reilly had 23 shows, with a total of 183 guests, 155 Republicans, and 28 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.7 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, not even close.



-- In February of 2011 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 166 guests, 139 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, not even close.



-- In January of 2011 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 165 guests, 141 Republicans, and 24 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 8.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance, not even close.



-- In December of 2010 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 171 guests, 144 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.8 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democrats per show, that is not balance.



-- In November of 2010 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 161 guests, 136 Republicans, and 25 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.5 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.1 Democrats per show, that is not balance.



-- In October of 2010 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 181 guests, 151 Republicans, and 30 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.1 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democrats per show, that is not balance.



-- In September of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 184 guests, 152 Republicans, and 32 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democrats per show, that is not balance.



-- In August of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 195 guests, 160 Republicans, and 35 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democrats per show, that is not balance.



-- In July of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 181 guests, 145 Republicans, and 36 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.5 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.6 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In June of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 179 guests, 153 Republicans, and 26 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.1 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In May of 2010 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 173 guests, 144 Republicans, and 29 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.5 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.3 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In April of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 183 guests, 148 Republicans, and 35 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.7 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In March of 2010 O'Reilly had 24 shows, with a total of 197 guests, 161 Republicans, and 36 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.7 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In February of 2010 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 157 guests, 134 Republicans, and 23 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.7 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.1 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In January of 2010 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 166 guests, 139 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.3 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In December of 2009 O'Reilly had 24 shows, with a total of 184 guests, 150 Republicans, and 34 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.3 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In November of 2009 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 158 guests, 134 Republicans, and 24 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.4 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.2 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In October of 2009 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 184 guests, 146 Republicans, and 38 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.6 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.7 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In September of 2009 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 174 guests, 141 Republicans, and 33 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.4 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In August of 2009 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 155 guests, 125 Republicans, and 30 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.3 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In July of 2009 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 169 guests, 135 Republicans, and 34 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.5 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.6 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In June of 2009 O'Reilly had 20 shows, with a total of 147 guests, 120 Republicans, and 27 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.0 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.



-- In May of 2009 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 149 guests, 117 Republicans, and 32 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 5.6 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show, that is not balance.

"


There is more if you need it.

Didn't find any inflammatory statements ?

In other words you can't say.

I watch (read, listen to) him and other news sources including Cnn, Msnbc, NPR, ABC, APT, Republican radio, Newsrock, Native Times, Time, National Geographic, Reader's Digest, and whatever else I wander upon.

So what one do you think is the most fair ? Being fair doesn't mean you cant have your own opinion and state it.

 

[Capvin]

Linn bee...I never speak for anyone but myself; however, I quite freely make corrections. If you will note the title of this thread concerned the last four years. In your response you included your stock market investments as being worse and I only pointed out (as did moms folly) that it would have been hard to lose in the stock market over the last four years.

 

[Capvin]

Gee Whiz Helmet...did you have to waste all that space to just repeat what was written earlier??

 

[hemet dennis]

Linn Bee I have no doubt that, for you, everything you expressed is true, EXCEPT, if over the last four years you experienced a loss in the stock market you had to be invested in North Korea. In this country the market increase has been fantastic and the expectation is that it will continue to soar in 2013.

Do you think the FED injecting trillions into the economy had anything to do with that ? Do you think in will keep going up because the FED's money or because of a booming economy ?

 

[hemet dennis]

Gee Whiz Helmet...did you have to waste all that space to just repeat what was written earlier??

The space was free and I like free stuff.