Vegas Free-for-All - Wynn Resorts Earnings and More

pjstroh

Jul 23, 2011
11:04pm

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Now, if most businesses were doing better than ever he might have a point....Is that what PJ is saying...that the Economy is Good...

Yes, the economy is good. But dont take my word for it...look at overall corporate profits and the GDP. They are massively improved since the great recession of 2008 - AND I might add that companies have a record amount of cash on their balance sheets. The economy itself is just fine. Employment is the problem...and there is thoughtful debate as to how to handle that problem. If you believe uncertainty about the debt ceiling is at the heart of that problem (as Mr Wynn does) then I'll gladly point you to your nearest friendly neighborhood t-party House member who refuses to raise it under any circumstance.

But as I told you on the paid side (shameless plug for the paid side) you rest your case on the anecdotal opinion of Steve Wynn. You can find plenty of business leaders whose political orientations are as varied as the people on this website.....I'll see your Steve Wynn with Warren Buffet and then raise you by Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman.

Don

Jul 24, 2011
12:30am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I predict 2 things:
1) The debt ceiling will be raised.
2) Steve Wynn will NOT hire 10,000 workers in Las Vegas once it has been raised.
Lets revist my prediction in 6 months.

DonDiego concurs with pjstroh's predictions. Oh, . . . and, 3) Steve Wynn will be audited by the IRS this year.

Oh, Mr. Wynn is not concerned just about the debt ceiling; DonDiego supposes Mr. Wynn would also concur that it will be raised. But Mr. Wynn is concerned about the overall anti-business/pro-redistribution attitude of the present administration. That is why he is likely to make less investment in Las Vegas and more investment in Macau.

pjstroh

Jul 24, 2011
12:49am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
But Mr. Wynn is concerned about the overall anti-business/pro-redistribution attitude of the present administration. That is why he is unlikely to make less investment in Las Vegas and more investment in Macau.

Don Diego might be on to something. And I made this same point on the paid side (yet another shameless plug for the paid side)! Mr Wynn's hotels cater to the only demographic of people who have not suffered from the financial collapse of 2008 and who have not been asked to participate in any of the austerity measures to fill the hole left by it. I'm sure the prospect that his wealthy clientele might be asked to sacrifice as much as the people who clean his toilets is frightening for him.

In any event, I'm sure he'll find solace in Macau. Communist China doesn't know anything about distributing wealth throughout the population. Our anti-business president continued his predecessor's tax rates so Steve Wynn could create jobs ... and Steve Wynn is creating jobs .... just not in America. Maybe we should cut his taxes even more. Its been a "Wynning" formula thus far !

alanleroy

Jul 24, 2011
1:10am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Now, if most businesses were doing better than ever he might have a point....Is that what PJ is saying...that the Economy is Good...

Yes, the economy is good.

Enough said.

alanleroy

Jul 24, 2011
1:32am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
If you believe uncertainty about the debt ceiling is at the heart of that problem (as Mr Wynn does) .

You might want to re-read that article. No one believes uncertainty about the debt ceiling is 'heart of the problem'. Democrat Wynn believes the debt ceiling issue is only a symptom of a lack of leadership. Obviously he has no confidence in the administration.

One example of lack of leadership...Obama didn't even support/cajole/persuade his own bi-partisan debt commission to reach the required 75% concensus. He only needed more 3 democrat (or republican) votes on that commission to get the Simpson/Bowles recommendation to congress for an up/down vote.

We could have been on a well planned course to a balanced budget back in January 2011 and this whole debt limit thing wouldn't even be an issue. It would have been true leadership for a President to have the recommendations of his own Bi-Partisan commission positiviely change the course of our economic history .

Instead of implementing a long run bi-partisan solution we're struggling with what should have been a routine vote on the financing operation of our government ...all because Obama's lack of leadership let the opportunity he created with the debt commission slip through his grasp....

pjstroh

Jul 24, 2011
2:08am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
If you believe uncertainty about the debt ceiling is at the heart of that problem (as Mr Wynn does) .

You are free to pick your own villains and heros in the current debt resolution debate. The AMerican people have overwhelmingly sided with the man you say lacks leadership.

The president's offer is reported as a ratio of 3:1 in favor of the Repuiblican spending cuts to Democrat Revenue Increases - an offer that has been refused by people who are content to see what happens when the government stops paying its bills. It is also an offer that favors T-Party's values far more than the Simpson-Bowles plan you cite.

Sooo...You can blame the president for the T-Party's inability to take "yes" for an answer...As for me, I prefer to hold people accountable for their own actions.

pokerwayne

Jul 24, 2011
2:33am

Block User

The constitution says "The validity of the public debt of the Untied States shall not be questioned...". Congress is charged with the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Congress takes an oath to support and defend the constitution.

If the members of congress allow the debt of the US to go into default, have they broken their oath? And if they have broken their oath, aren't they guilty of treason?

I guess you could question what exactly "shall not be questioned" really means.....I can see how it can be read several ways.

Interesting to see if any kind of plan emerges before the Asian markets open at 4:00pm ET today. Some say a big drop will start there and follow the markets around the world if no deal is forthcoming.

A fine pickle we have got ourselves into isn't it?

alanleroy

Jul 24, 2011
3:04am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
The president's offer is reported as a ratio of 3:1 in favor of the Repuiblican spending cuts to Democrat Revenue Increases - an offer that has been refused by people who are content to see what happens when the government stops paying its bills.

A leader would have resolved this permanently (months ago) by supporting his own bi-partisan debt commission....at least a good leader would. Now it's turned into a 'crisis'...because he didn't act when he had the perfect opportunity. Two lousy presidents in a row.

pjstroh

Jul 24, 2011
3:12am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
The president's offer is reported as a ratio of 3:1 in favor of the Repuiblican spending cuts to Democrat Revenue Increases - an offer that has been refused by people who are content to see what happens when the government stops paying its bills.

You dont seem to hold any accountability on the part of the leadership in the House. The president has his party ready to deal . Both the Senate Majority and Minority leaders have their people ready to deal. And the House Minority leader has her people ready to deal.

There is only one "leader" left that doesn't...but apparently its the president's responisbility to make House Republicans ready to deal.

alanleroy

Jul 24, 2011
3:31am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
The president's offer is reported as a ratio of 3:1 in favor of the Repuiblican spending cuts to Democrat Revenue Increases - an offer that has been refused by people who are content to see what happens when the government stops paying its bills.

A leader would have resolved this permanently (months ago) by supporting his own bi-partisan debt commission....at least a good leader would. Now it's turned into a 'crisis'...because he didn't act when he had the perfect opportunity. Two lousy presidents in a row.

You keep missing the point. In terms of 'dealing'--this should have been dealt with months ago. It should have been addressed permanently through the bi-partisan debt commission Obama created. It wasn't. Now it's a 'crisis'. I fault Obama for not Getting the teams together back in January and really fixing the problem That's what a leader does...he doesn't wait unil it's a festering boil....He had a perfect chance to really solve a serious problem in the best interest of the nation. He created a commission. He left them hanging in the wind. Why?

If I had my druthers, the house and senate would vote today 100% to just increase the limit as requested by the Secretary of the Treasury..and then go back and not leave washington until they agree on a plan to balance the budget...preferably through a constitutional amendment....What really chaffes my dish is that the Republicans cried about a Balanced Budget for 60 years and the first time they got control of both houses and the white house they go on a borrowing spree....That's why we need an amendment...Politicians can't be trusted.

‹2 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now