UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i used to think tokeprep was somewhat of a centrist, but he seems to have flown off the retard track lately.
Barack Obama Wants U.S. Economic Failure
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
i used to think tokeprep was somewhat of a centrist, but he seems to have flown off the retard track lately.
Boy, you don't know shit about business, global or domestic, do you? Those record stock market highs haven't equated to this GDP growth you speak of, empirically, have they? Nope. Indeed, the Fed's QE program has been cited as the impetus for rising asset prices, since they're continuing to flood the markets with cheap cash. Whenever the Fed talks about ending QE, stocks go down; whenever they say it's going to continue, stocks go up.
A lot of the increased profitability you speak of is in international markets, where the money is parked and off limits to the IRS so long as it remains parked. There is no corporate tax revenue from those parked funds, and American companies cannot use those internationally parked funds to make investments or create jobs in the United States. We're into the trillions in cash parked offshore now, aren't we?
Likewise, a lot of the increased profitability you speak of came from cutting American jobs and shutting down American operations. Whatever was forgone probably does not equal what comes back.
Pulling the poor out of poverty doesn't create prosperity. Creating prosperity pulls the poor out of poverty.
My ideas have never been implemented, so you couldn't possibly say they "don't work." Since you were clueless about my opposition to a flat tax, I'm assuming you're ignorant of most of my other ideas as well.
Not with significant exposure to the stock market. That's a few million people.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
any amount of money is significant, you little turd.
you'll learn this when mommy and daddy stop paying for your every need.
I'm a very moderate and data driven person. In some topics, perhaps the Federal Reserve or antitrust policy, this tends to fall on "your side" of things, because "your side" is the right one, based on the factual information available. In other topics, perhaps Obamacare and tax policy, it works against you, because the facts do not align with the politics.
My use of the phrase "any significant exposure" obviously did not mean "any amount of money." And once again, if the money is in a retirement account--as it is for most--the increased balance means nothing in the present. My point was that the stock market should not be used as an indicator of economic health because it isn't. See the tech bubble, see the housing bubble: record highs should make people nervous, not make them feel good.
Again, I've been entirely independent since I turned 18. My mommy and daddy don't pay for anything and never have; they're po' white trash, they couldn't afford to pay for anything anyway. Why are you relying on these pitiful little attacks instead of sticking to the easy substance?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you make lots of assumptions though, and you have given away two things which lead me to believe you are a simple moderate right winger.
log cabin republican, minus the log cabin part.
i'm starting to think that your gayness is as real as your education. dubious at best.
You should take your own advice. You wouldn't acknowledge that increased stock values accrue almost entirely to the top 10%, that most Americans have very little exposure to stocks ($12,000 median balance), or that most of that exposure is limited to retirement accounts, and yet all of these things are easily confirmed with some simple Google searches.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
unless you happen to be presently planning to retire, as a shitload of baby boomers now are.
no real world experience with you. not even a consideration.
that kind of thing betrays you.
not sure where to go with this one, and am done with you for tonight anyway.
go ahead and have the last word.
You think that because I disagreed with you. Period. You are so caught up in the battle that you are incapable of civility. Your beliefs tend to be emotional ones, not factual ones. When you demand that people give you facts to support their views and they do, you rarely bother replying to the post. You aren't really interested in debating so much as you are attacking people who disagree with you.
I'm just here for the debate. I want to fight about facts and reality, not to see people calling each other names and acting like stupid, whiny little children. If I'm proven wrong it means I learned something, not that my fragile ideological ego has been hopelessly crushed. I used to be very laissez-faire, anti-abortion, anti-gun, etc., until either convincing facts or convincing arguments changed my mind.
A willingness to admit being wrong and change your mind is a necessity in political discussion, and yet those elements tend to be the missing ones. The war is hopeless and it's a waste of your time to fight it; standing up for truth and fact over ideology is far more noble and far more valuable than serving as an irrelevant partisan in a childish fight.
Didn't we already cover this? Or am I thinking of Chesus? Anyone on the verge of retiring now doesn't have their money in the stock market, unless they got really, really horrible financial advice.
No real world experience with you. Not even a consideration. That kind of thing betrays you, Buck. You speak of these baby boomers presently planning to retire as if they're going to benefit from these record stock market highs, and in the same breath you betray your ignorance of retirement planning.
Who my parents were is totally irrelevant to who I am. Judging people based on their parents is as bad as judging them based on their skin color.
see4
Well-Known Member
Awww. How did that work out for ya? How is President Romney doing in office? Did his healthcare bill pass? You know.. the Affordable Care Act that is doing wonders in Massachusetts.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It means that, as President you may NOT manage your assets. They are in Blind Trust for the duration. That is the one anti-perk.
If you know what you are doing, money is made regardless of market direction. Hedging, short sales, duck and cover, capital swaps, etc.
I do all that. But, a Blind Trust, does not.
see4
Well-Known Member
Capital swaps? Hedging? Short sales?
You sure you do these things? You are using coined terms that generally are meant to describe generic business transactions.
Do you mean risk arbitrage? Shorting options? Swaps as in a strip, strap, straddle or butterfly spread in an effort to hedge a loss on commodity investing?
Im not trying to call you out, but it just seems odd.
Im sorry if you were being generic on purpose.
Obama's income went down because his books stopped selling as well once the magic faded. Book sales have always been the major source of his income.
Doer
Well-Known Member
IN THE BLIND TRUST.
If he was not precluded from managing, he could have precluded much of that actual loss. He is stuck with the income sources he went in with.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Yes, but, who other than you and I even understand that? Why would it seem odd in the short hand if you got it exactly?
And you well know what you said is just another order, of generalization. The devil is in the detail of when to fold the hand. You know that. A lot of the young folk here are only just arriving at adult thought.
A bind trust can neither fold nor double down, that is the point.
But, it you are just blind betting on the long side, I suggest the study of these insurance techniques. And you I think, agree.
Oh, and my Capital Swapping, I mean IRS 1031, Like Kind, Exchange with no tax penalty.
He couldn't have precluded anything. His income went down because not as many people were buying his books--sell fewer books, get fewer dollars. It's not a matter of investment strategy.
Of course, the trustee of a blind trust can manage the assets and do all of the things you mentioned, so I don't even understand why you would blame a blind trust in the first place.