T1B

Scott wrote:I've never felt the need to lie or try and misdirect in order to prove a point

Feel free to link up my "lie" anytime.

You've lost well over 50% or more of whatever you had banked beacuse you're in it for the "long haul".

A couple of points here to shoot you down.

1. You don't know what I'm holding. Stocks and funds, WAY down, yep. Bonds, gold, not so.

2. I haven't "lost" a penny. You only lose (or win) when you sell. I haven't sold.

I crack up at the thought of you taking shots at me

I've taken no shot at you at all.

All I did was point out to Otis (and others reading) some things about predictions you made.



Do you have any comments about Obama's handling of the economy?

Dinsdale wrote:

KC Scott wrote:You've lost well over 50% or more of whatever you had banked beacuse you're in it for the "long haul".

Crackin' up over here.

But rather than explaining it (because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's cracking up over it), I'll let you twist in the wind and see if you can figure it out all by your lonesome.

poptart wrote:I haven't "lost" a penny. You only lose (or win) when you sell. I haven't sold.

DING DING DING!!!!

We have a winner!


Fucking HILARIOUS that a "financial guru" doesn't understand this.

And coming from a "financial guru" whose predictions come through at a worse clip than a coin flip, that bought high and sold low...

Priceless.

Dinsdale wrote: quenessential

I'll pray for him.

This will ruffle Scott's feathers some more.

As Otis is praising him for, Scott called the market drop in October of 2006 in this thread ...

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=19426

Now, I WILL give Scott props for calling the crash.
Many investment "experts" laffed at the idea of a crash.
So yes, nice job, Scott.

BUT ... BUT ...

After Scott called for a crash, the Dow went .... UP 15% -- from 12,000 to 14,000.
And it then took until June of 2008 until it again went down to the 12,000 level it was at when Scott made his prediction.

So nearly 2 years AFTER Scott made his prediction, the market was still at the very same level.

If I was Otis, I would have said that Scott was right ... sort of.

[sarcasm]I'm having a difficult time holding back all the confidence I have in the White House after the study group "break out sessions" the other day--especially the tax reform session chaired by Charlie Rangel. It's refreshing to know that our nation's economy is in good hands.[/sarcasm]

poptart wrote:This will ruffle Scott's feathers some more.

As Otis is praising him for, Scott called the market drop in October of 2006 in this thread ...

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=19426

Now, I WILL give Scott props for calling the crash.
Many investment "experts" laffed at the idea of a crash.
So yes, nice job, Scott.

BUT ... BUT ...

After Scott called for a crash, the Dow went .... UP 15% -- from 12,000 to 14,000.
And it then took until June of 2008 until it again went down to the 12,000 level it was at when Scott made his prediction.

That thread was a blast from the past, and quite a primer on what we've faced the past several months. I just read skimmed it again and around page 4 or so 88 predicted the mortgage foreclosure crisis spot fucking on.

On 10/04/06 88 wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, housing prices do go down. It has happened all across the country many times over the years. The thing that worries me about residential real estate, and California residential real estate in particular, is that much of it is financed on interest only loans. In addition, people have borrowed the "equity" in their homes and spent it on other things, including real property in other states. Californians have driven up the price of Montana vacation property astronomically in the last 10 years. If interest rates go up and/or housing prices tumble, and properties cannot be sold for what is owed on them, the mortgage loan defaults could seriously affect the entire economy. It probably wouldn't crash the economy, but it would be bad. I'm not saying that is going to happen, but it is a concern.

I believe I'll pay close attention to what this man has to say from now on.

poptart wrote:

Scott wrote:I've never felt the need to lie or try and misdirect in order to prove a point

Feel free to link up my "lie" anytime.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30769&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... a&start=30

Btw, I'm not doing charity work in Korea.

Wait for it.............

Your doing God's work...... Right?

2. I haven't "lost" a penny. You only lose (or win) when you sell. I haven't sold.

Only a douche of Disdalian proportion plays that argument - touche'

What you have is only worth what someone will pay for it - Right Now
unless you have a crystal ball or Jesus gives you some insider info - youre down ___% Right now

No Spinning - no gramatical pick and choose - You're out.

Do you have any comments about Obama's handling of the economy?

What is there to really comment about?

The last Admin Gave 700 Billion to the Banks - This Admin just gave $700 Billion to all kinds of shit - some good, some suck

What is there to really comment on? We bitched when Bush gave it away and we're bitching now that BO is chucking it out the window...

---------------------------------------

The anger on this board is laughable - it's like a huge menstration.
The big question is why? Has everyone's standard of living suddenly gone dramaticaly down?
Mine didn't change - Same job, same pay, same stuff - life is good.
Maybe that's why I don't get all the hate.

KC Scott wrote:

poptart wrote:Btw, I'm not doing charity work in Korea.

Wait for it.............

Your doing God's work...... Right?

I think he's just there for the pan-face poon.

Two in the hole...One in the Seoul

I didn't see my "lie" in that link, Scott.

What I see there is that you think the illegals aren't costing the fed gov much.

I don't think you are a liar, I just think you're choosing to drink the kool aid.



Charity: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering ; also : aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy

Charity, as people understand the definition, is not my "business" here.

But in a sense, yes.

The sense being that ALL humanity is suffering in spiritual darkness.

I've directed my life toward testifying to the Light that people must have.

I'm not handing blankets out to poor people.



Scott, your take that I've (or anyone else) has LOST money in the market, when they are still holding the same number of shares, is beyond goofy.

If a football team is down 20-7 in the 2nd quarter, have they LOST the game?

Nope, the game is still being played.



As to why people are typing "hate" on this board about the way our economy is being run, well, it should be pretty obvious.

People don't believe bigger government is the right or appropriate answer.

People don't like having more of their liberty taken away.

You know what, if our ship was sinking because our government had been failing to take on enough debt, then I'd say Obama's actions could make some sense.

Do you think we need to take on a more massive amount of debt ... to get us out of the problem(s) brought on by ... ummm .... taking on way too much debt??

lol


Cuckoo.

88 wrote:
I get things right once in a while. I also suggested that people get out of the stock market like I did in the summer of 2007 because it was obviously grossly overvalued. If they had done that, like I did, they would have missed an additional 1,000 point gain, but also the ensuing 6,000+ point loss.

Yea, but according to Dins and Tart Math - you didn't really gain anything

He didn't gain anything you fucking mouth breathing retard, he just didn't LOSE it.

You DO understand the difference, don't you?

Or do you?

smackaholic wrote:What do you 'spose a run of the mill doctor visit ought to really cost? You know, just walk into an office, have a seat and say "high doc, it hurts when I do this". No filling out paperwork ahead of time, no being weighed/measured/prodded by some fukking medical assistant. Just you, talking to the doc for maybe 10 minutes.

I'm guessing that a doc without an army of paper pushers on staff would be satisfied making $100/hr gross. So, he could see you for 10 minutes and charge you 20 bucks.

What kind of doctor are we talking about? The guy who's past 70, already collecting social security and receiving a payout from his IRA's, who's semi-retired and continues to practice because he's scared that retirement would literally bore him to death? Yeah, he might be satisfied at $100/hr gross. Anyone else, though, and I'm afraid you're off by half. At least.

Let's do some math here. $100/hr x 2,000 billable hours/yr (a generous estimate, btw) = $200,000/yr gross.

Now, I'm not a doctor. But I am a self-employed professional. And I'm well aware that it costs money to do that. Lessee here, just off the top of my head, a doctor has the following expenses:

Office rent/mortgage payment
Office equipment
Office supplies
Utilities for office (if you rent and you're lucky, the landlord might pay these)
Payroll (if >1 full-time employee, this expense will get huge against $200,000/yr gross)
Licensing fees (lawyers have these where I live, I assume doctors have 'em too)
Continuing education (again, lawyers have mandatory continuing education requirements where I live, I'd hope that doctors have them too)
Malpractice insurance (even in the good ol' days, I suspect doctors had to carry this)

Granted, you could share a practice, or at least office space, with other doctors. If you do that, you might cut expenses in the first 4-5 categories, but you'll still have some expenses in those categories in any event.

And I haven't even started on living expenses. On top of your ordinary expenses, medical school, like law school, is expensive. So I'll bet that the typical doctor, at least for part of his career, has a student loan or two (or maybe more) to repay.

I live in an area which has a relatively low cost of living overall, and even here, it's not uncommon to see lawyers charge $200/hr or more, except on certain matters. As a general rule, doctors, at least around here, tend to make more than lawyers. And since there's fewer doctors relative to the need for doctors than there are lawyers relative to the need for lawyers, you don't have the same market forces exerting downward pressure on their income.

I suspect that the typical doctor would bill you at roughly $300/hr. Certainly, insurance pays more for a doctor's visit, in most cases, than this -- even before you factor in your copay.

Last time I went to a doctor (probably the first time in over 15 years), I was uninsured, and paid cash.

They gave me something like a 65% discount, and explained the rest was all in filling out the paperwork for the insurance company.


But, we should probably let bureaucrats handle it... that'll fix it.

*giggle* "I'm a very good bowler, Jay."



The Next Bubble: Obama's Budget Deficit

Joshua Zumbrun

The U.S. could be in the hole $2.3 trillion more than expected--and that's if the economy performs well.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--As President Obama prepares to send his budget to Congress next week, he's run into a bit of a stumbling block. The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the national debt under the president's budget will be $2.3 trillion deeper than the White House estimates.

Now for the real bad news: Both estimates are optimistic. If the economy continues to deteriorate faster than economists project, those numbers will balloon further.

Over the next decade, the CBO projects that the White House budget will run $9.3 trillion in deficits. The White House projection had been $7 trillion. The problem for Obama, as his budget moves to Congress: Lawmakers tend to trust CBO figures over all others. "CBO's word is the gospel," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement.

When the White House released its budget in February, its economic forecast was in the same ballpark as other estimates, but decidedly on the sunny side. One assumption, for example, was that the average unemployment for 2009 would be 8.1%. That assumption was quickly blown to pieces when the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced two weeks later that unemployment had already reached that level by January. The CBO projects 2009 unemployment will instead be 8.8% before peaking in 2010.

The key metric, when determining if a deficit is controllable, is looking at the ratio of the debt to the country's GDP. If this ratio is shrinking, then the debt is manageable. The White House said this would happen by 2013. The CBO says this will not happen, even by 2019. This difference between White House and CBO estimates is driven primarily by assumptions about the overall direction of the country's economy.

That economic reality could be even worse than what the CBO projects. After a 1.5% loss in 2009, the CBO says real GDP will grow by 4.1% in 2010 and 2011, hopeful assumptions shared by Obama's team. "As you emerge from a recession, economic growth rates can temporarily be quite high because you're starting from such a low base," promises Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

This is indeed the case with some recessions. But growth can also be quite slow for years coming out of a recession, leaving tax revenues much lower--and deficits higher--than either the CBO or White House projections.

The White House estimates are "incredibly high by recent historical standards," says Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber, quick to point out that it supported both the $700 billion bank bailout and the stimulus package, is opposed to Obama's budget. If spending stays elevated without a robust recovery, an increase in taxes is one of the only ways to close the deficit.

Orszag says new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office are an expected part of the process, and the White House will stick to its goal of cutting the deficit in half, using CBO numbers not its own numbers.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a statement saying she believes the House can pass a budget reflecting the president's priorities in two weeks. The Senate was less sanguine. "The reality is we are going to have to make adjustments to the president's budget if we want to keep the deficit on a downward trajectory," says Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. If the economy doesn't pick up soon, that'll be the understatement of the decade.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/20/federa ... udget.html







"You can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us!"