My account was losing money since well before the Dems got control of congress in 2007. And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing.
Printable View
My account was losing money since well before the Dems got control of congress in 2007. And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing.
I think your weednomics analogy might reach more people than my example using real numbers. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
Just about anything can be related back to good or weed :hippy:
It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Or do what makes most sense. Take control and invest your own money.
Honestly the money lost is no ones fault but you're own. If nothing else you could've at best put the money into a CD that wouldgive you enough for the rate of infation over the course of 5 years. You're just about guaranteed to not lose money.
Again an example of how you are responsible for how your money grows, not the government.
nope.. but increase the capital gains tax and those companies that are in your mutual fund will see even further losses and you'll lose even more of your 20k. I suggest you start researching funds and companies to see where your money is most profitable. Obviously it's not where you have it now.Quote:
And I don't have any capital gains, only capital losses, and 20% of nothing is still nothing
I'm not an investor, which is why I have my money invested in a managed mutual fund. I'm not sure the details, but if I pull it out now, I lose even more money. And pretty much everyone that has money invested in stocks is losing money too, not just me. The money I'm losing isn't a lot, but it's significant. No one can accurately predict the stock market, so I think I'll just keep my money in there and weather out the recession.
So, if Obama is president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money, then it's his fault, but if Bush is the president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money then it's no fault but your own?
You can most certainly predict the likelihood of a company becoming profitable and what it's projected growth will be. If you couldn't then men like Warren Buffet would be poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Why will you lose money and how much money will you lose? How much money have you lost in this fund over the last 2-3 years? Do you see what I'm getting at? Does the amount you'd lose by pulling out come close to the amount you've lost already? If so then you should've backed out of your fund probably last year.
Honestly I'm not sure why you brought up the fact that you've lost money multiple years in a row. It wasn't relevant to the subject at hand or the government and was only about you.
The mutual fund part of your reply really didn't interest me in particular except that you would try to put a personal experience that you had the right and the oppurtunity to avoid, on to someone else (that's how it appeared in your post anyhow. Maybe you didn't mean it that way).
No.. I wouldn't blame any president. The stock market is the stock market. I have the right to not play it.Quote:
So, if Obama is president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money, then it's his fault, but if Bush is the president, and you have money invested in stocks and you lose money then it's no fault but your own?
I simply meant, the values that make America great. Rewarding hard work, individualism, and success, as opposed to punishing those that actually achieve the American dream. American values, competition, having faith that each person is capable to achieve whatever they want and has the ability within them to do so as long as they choose to. As opposed to the vision that most liberals have, that America is evil, certain groups of people just aren't capable of doing well without the help of big brother ect., that Americans aren't able to make decisions for themselves and need to be micromanaged. That anyone that has money is evil and is the reason that everyone else doesn't have money, (you know class warfare). You know, the liberal mantra. I am sure you feel like your "ideas" are very mainstream, likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs, this may explain why you don't think you are liberal, because in your eyes your not, you are just like everyone else on campus. LMFAO!Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Like I said, after you actually have some real life exp, you should come back and read some of the things you are saying now. Careful you may throw up a lil' in your mouth!:jointsmile: I would love to know if you change your mind on taking the money people earn once you are actually earning money.
p.s., there are liberals that actually understand America, American Values, and that do in fact love their country, they are just few and far between, obviously as evident here on this forum. (They do really believe they are right and have good intentions, they just happen to be wrong!)
Again, you are a real smart guy apparently, since you like to tell other people what they mean! The fact that you are a grad student kind of explains alot though! You should come back and re-read these posts about 7 years from now.
Maybe you should have invested in an oil company.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by khronik
You will have to wait for "this recession" to start before you can weather it. Do you even know the definition of recession?Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
You need to put your trust in the government and buy savings bonds hahahahahahaha.
Oh and btw you cannot lose more by selling than you have already lost, all youi can do is lock in your losses. Don't they have economics classes at that graduate school?
I'm an engineer, not an economist. And you're wrong about how I can't lose more than I've already lost. If you pull out a CD early, you lose money, for instance. I'm not sure the details, and I will be the first to tell you I'm no Warren Buffet, (who supports raising the tax on capital gains by the way) but I know that if I pull out all my money at once, I'm boned.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
Well, you assume that Obama is very "liberal" and then ascribe all this nonsense to "liberals" and therefore Obama. I worked for two years after I got my undergraduate degree, and I just showed up on campus for the first time yesterday, so this BS about "surrounding myself with liberals on campus" is just that. My grandpa's been a Democrat his whole life, and he's 82. My dad has only ever voted for third-party candidates in the time I've known him, but he supports Obama. I have at least three uncles who each make over $150,000 a year, who all support Obama. Billionaires George Soros and Warren Buffet support Obama. So I don't see where you get off saying that no one with real-life experience could possibly support the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
"likely because you surround yourself with limp wristed libs,"
Hey 818 you should really attempt some self control. Your posts are so reminiscent of a 10 year old bully calling people names. You seem to really struggle sticking to the facts and not putting people down. I am sure you have what you believe to be a real witty response to this post, but check yourself. Show some respect to other peoples opinions. Most of these political threads have you making absurdly exaggerated and offensive comments towards others.
"Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?"
The reason we do not is because of lobbyists. The people paying for the elected officials campaigns. Any current environmental taxes are nonsense. The externalities associated with these huge corporations are beyond the scope of most peoples understanding. Gas SHOULD cost well over 5$ a gallon. A t-shirt should cost a Hundred... This applies to everything at the cherished walmarts. The cost should be increased and companies should be responsible for cleaning up the mess being made of the environment. If they don't want to do it, which they have shown they do not, then they need HUGE taxes imposed so the government can do it for them. All this freedom, and american dream nonsense...if the government would let them, these companies would be pouring their toxic wastes in a hole underneath your homes.
I do not think the windfall profits tax is a good idea, but I also do not agree with the premise that EVERYONE has a stake in the profitability of oil companies.
The idea that "you are big oil" is not necessarily true. First of all, not everyone has a 401k, IRA, or other mutual fund investments. And second, even for those who do, just because you have a 401k does not mean you are necessarily invested in oil companies.
401k investment options usually include several options that are not invested in stocks at all --- there may be money market accounts, bond funds, real estate investment trusts and other non-stock investment options. Almost certainly you will have some stock mutual funds as well, but there are many mutual funds that are not invested in oil. Since most oil companies are large and highly capitalized, almost any small cap fund will have very little invested in oil. Also there are many funds out there that include some kind of social responisbility component to their investment strategy and intentionally exclude investments in companies such as oil comanies, gross polluters, environmentally irresponsible industries, tobacco companies, companies that use child labor, or other industires or campanies that they define as socially irresponsible. If you want to know what your mutual funds are invested in, read the prospectus. You are only invested in Big Oil if you choose to be.
A lot of the debate so far has centered around whether policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich" are favorable or disfavorable to "the rest of us."
There is a certain percentage of our population who are the "rich" who, if they always support policies favorable to themselves, will always support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich," even at the expense of the "poor" or the "middle class."
And there is a certain percentage of our population who are the "poor" who, if they always support policies favorabe to themselves, will always support policies favorable the "poor," even at the expense of industry and/or the "rich" or the "middle class."
But the most important swing constituency is the "middle class," who are neither rich nor poor. In good economic times, the middle class sees a chance that they themselves may become rich, and they tend to support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich." In bad economic times, the middle class fears the prospect that they themselves may become poor, and they tend to support policies favorable to the "poor."
If you are middle class right now, do you think you have a better chance of becoming rich or poor in the future?
It is true that a mutual fund is a collection of stocks, but it is NOT true that "Some/most of which include Oil." It is very easy to find out what your mutual fund is invested in, and if you do not want to invest in oil, it is easy to avoid it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
Actually if you look at the overall performance of the stock market, it has been esentially flat since around the begining of the year 2000. It goes up, it comes back down, but overall there have been very little gains for most of the decade. With fees and operating expenses, it is not surpirsing that many people have seen a decline in portfolio value during this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
If you have actually been actively investing during the whole time, buying on a periodic schedule regardless of the market conditions (like a little each paycheck in a 401k), then you have probably made some money. This is becasue you buy more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high --- so if even if there are a lot of ups and downs, as long as the market still returns to the same value, you generally stand a good chance of still making money. But if you invested a lump sum of 20,000 at the begining, you have probably lost money.
If the money is in a 401k, then there are is little opprtunity to "Take control and invest your own money." The most you can do is choose from among the investment options offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Not true. Just because you have a 401k does not mean you own stock in oil companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Wrong. The money was BORROWED and given away. It wasn't taken from some huge pile of cash that the government has saved up from income taxes --- it was borrowed and added to the national debt. If it was stolen from anyone, it was stolen from the future generations of taxpayers who will have to pay off the debt with interest. It is not a "tax rebate" --- it is a tax INCREASE on future generations so that we can buy crap now. What a waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:Quote:
What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ma...l?pagewanted=5
The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.Quote:
And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.
Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:
You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.Quote:
Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.
Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..
$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.
Now let's increase that to 20%
$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.
now let's set that in the middle at 24%
$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.
The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.
That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.
Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.
If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.
It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?
In the end we all suffer for capital gains.
Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.Quote:
This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).
And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.Quote:
Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.
I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.Quote:
You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.
I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.Quote:
You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!
He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.Quote:
2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?
Too much work.Quote:
Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.
Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.
First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.Quote:
Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o[/YOUTUBE]
They should if they have half a brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Looking forward to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Ok, thank you for posting it. I have read this and it's nothing new. The amount of money saved saved per American is negligible here.Quote:
This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ma...l?pagewanted=5
McCainâ??s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obamaâ??s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings.
That example was given in the article you posted. Wow, a whole extra $700 a year, that amounts to $13/week. I'm reeling in the money now.
To be honest I would rather pay that extra $700 and have my government do some good with it.
And by the way, that article was actually really bad at outlining Obama's 'payroll tax' cut. I am confident you could've found a better article as I actually had to go out and search with keywords I found in that article to truely understand what his plan proposed.
What is interesting is what he had to say a year ago about this.
Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.
ABC News: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike
Now he proposes his cap at 250k.
You realize that the payroll tax cut isn't really a cut but more accurately a shift in who pays the taxes. So you're right, windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, because there's not an actual cut in the payroll tax.Quote:
The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.
Last I checked I was talking about capital gains. Matter of fact if you were paying attention I quoted you when you listed the 20-28% figure that obama proposes to raise the Capital gains tax to. So really you seem to be the one that's confused.Quote:
You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.
Last I checked companies keep their own investment portfolios.. last I checked capital gains still effects big business in more ways than you can imagine.
uhh.. that's great because I never accused you of supporting the war either. What are you talking about, you went way out into left field.Quote:
Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.
Warren Buffet I would be willing to listen to, but you're a self confessed person who knows nothing about investing. And you're hanging on the words of Obama, even though you don't really understand what he's saying.Quote:
And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.
Again you realize that the president is not responsible for what the stock market does and is not responsible for your fiscal well being? Who is just about anyone else with invested money.Quote:
I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.
Since I actually take the time to analyze my stocks and pay attention to what the companies are doing I have not lost any money. My stock portfolio has risen between 15-22% each year for the last 3 years.
I am better at investment than most but you are making a huge assumption by saying "I imagine that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too." Just because you are bad with money does not mean other people are who take the time to understand the market.
Last I checked the constitution granted us freedom, not socialized services. Socialized services are services that cost money that you may or may not take part in.Quote:
I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.
For example, I pay medicare... but I do not get to participate in medicare, or medicaid for that matter. I didn't participate for free lunch program at school, I never qualified for any government programs growing up yet my family still had to pay into it.
That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.
That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.
Honestly I feel that a good majority of the services the government provides should be done away with. It is a waste of our tax dollars. I am not talking about welfare or medicare but our government is notoriously bad with spending our money. Why should we have to pay more money so they can spend more on programs that the majority of the population won't get to use.
So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.Quote:
He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.
You took the time to obviously read through my long response and try to rebuttal with your own, yet this is too much work?Quote:
Too much work.
More like you can't do it, and even if you can you've probably been working the google on your internet machine to try to dig something up. The fact is that in comparison to other senators his list of actual accomplishments is pathetic and just about non existant.
Texas state senator, US congressmen or a city council person. It doesn't matter, this is a guy who went on national TV to endorse Obama. If you are going to say you support someone and that you stand behind them you better have a good reason for doing it.Quote:
First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.
If you can't name even one accomplishment from that candidate then it raises alot of flags. Why would a state senator support someone he knows nothing about. This doesn't alarm you AT ALL?
Here is an excerpt from CNN. Next time you should strongly consider backing up what you say with facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
In defense of oil companies - Apr. 29, 2008Quote:
Oil companies aren't as profitable as you think
I sometimes get the impression that people think oil executives hold clandestine meetings where they unilaterally decide to set the price of oil and gas in order to maximize their profits. After maniacally laughing about how they are gouging the American public, they then go swimming in pools of gold ala Scrooge McDuck.
But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.
The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.
Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?
And how is this the governments fault. The government is not responsible for the free market, the free market takes care of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
If you are losing money then ultimately this is your own fault. I manage my own stocks and have not lost any money since 2002.
If you invest a lump sum of money at the beginning of a decline with unsure market conditions than this is a poor decision made on the investor. The government is not responsible for poor investment decisions.Quote:
If you have actually been actively investing during the whole time, buying on a periodic schedule regardless of the market conditions (like a little each paycheck in a 401k), then you have probably made some money. This is becasue you buy more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high --- so if even if there are a lot of ups and downs, as long as the market still returns to the same value, you generally stand a good chance of still making money. But if you invested a lump sum of 20,000 at the begining, you have probably lost money.
I am not disclosing how much I have in the market but it is significantly more than 20k... and I have not lost anything since 2002.
And with the rising cost of oil you would think that if you're losing money in your funds that you would move it to a fund that was heavily vested in oil. Again, this would be a smart investment decision that should be made by the investor. It is of no fault of the government.Quote:
If the money is in a 401k, then there are is little opprtunity to "Take control and invest your own money." The most you can do is choose from among the investment options offered.
And you've sort've gone off topic, the only reason 401k's were mentioned were in relation to windfall profits tax. Which if you have any kind of DECENT stock portfolio then you will have at LEAST 1 oil stock as well as several other slow steady performers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Case in point. You are going to try to argue that Obama isn't "very liberal". You are right on my assumption about him, but you also prove my point as to your beliefs as well. Again, you don't see him or yourself for that matter as very liberal, because apparently in your little world your beliefs just seem as though they are middle of the road or mainstream. (Just like everyone else you know right!) This is the clue that indicates you surround yourself with limp wristed libs. (Not to mention the fact you were surprised that "people on a cannabis site weren't orgasming over Obama. Or even worse yet, staunchly opposed to his political philosophy! OH MY! Were your intentions to seek out other sheeple to reinforce the beliefs that you were indoctrinated with?:wtf:)
The mainstream media has the same problem. Ask most of the pseudo reporters on any of the major networks, "do you have a liberal bias" the answer is "no, we are as fair as all the other networks," not understanding that they all are very liberal and biased. They don't see this just like you don't see it in yourself, because you have the same beliefs as ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE YOU TRY TO SURROUND YOURSELF WITH. If you do that then you "think" you aren't liberal. I know I know, I am being a bully by pointing this out, and also being incoherent.
More to the point though, IT'S A MATTER OF FACT THAT OBAMA IS A FLAMING BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL! The fact that you are going to try to say otherwise is laughable! In fact I don't think there are really all that many other people that could be considered more liberal than him.
A bright red flag for spotting a liberal, if you call them out they get really mad and defensive and begin kicking and screaming and crying foul! Liberals hate to be outed for some reason.:)
Please, you can believe whatever the hell you want really, I could care less. It's just funny as hell that after you pledge so much support for, and share your thoughts, that when someone says that you are liberal you have a fit. Typical liberal.
You were implying that anyone with a 401k automatically has a stake in the success of oil companies and that a windfall profit tax on oil companies would hurt anyone with a 401k. That's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
Again, I'm NOT in favor of a windfall profit tax on oil companies, but I was objecting to the logic that said it would hurt anyone with a 401k.
Now you are saying that SMART investors are invested in oil stocks, while also warning that oil stocks will be hurt by a windfall profit tax. Maybe a smart investor would guage whether this new tax would hurt oil companies as much as you say, then decide what are the odds of the tax passing, consider what are the other factors affecting oil stock proces, and then decide if now is a good time to buy, hold or sell oil stocks.
And then there are other people who base their investment decisions on more than just the numbers.
That is an excellent point, (even though you are an evil liberal). I would put my money on the fact that Obama won't get the chance to do this though, but again, excellent point. (Damn smartass liberal):DQuote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
In a related kind of way, Wal Mart apparently is preparing for the worst, they have been scurrying around in the event that Obama does win and they have to deal with some of their own workforce issues. So I do agree with you, people should prepare for some of the possible changes to come in the event of the "worst case scenario".:jointsmile: Especially the changes that are easy to see coming.
Hollistic stock buying......your killing me
if you dont use numbers what do you use?
100% numbers, speculation on numbers, and more numbers.... LOL
Buy at a low number sell at a high number...seams easy
Kron you are so miss informed it is scary
http://www.acuratings.org/2005Senate.htm
^^^^^^ look up your senators^^^^^^^^
Obama's Liberal Voting Record
Via Amanda Carpenter we get the skinny on Barack Obama's attempt to look like a "uniter" and a moderate. Just a little slice of reality called a Voting Record. Yes; with all the would be Senatorial Presidential candidates it's a good time to recall that senators have VRs.
The Illinois Senator's ACU rating is 8 which puts him on Hillary's left (9) and Kerry's right (5) to compare him to 2 other Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
I did not say it was the government's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
2002 was a market bottom. No one who invested in 2002 and stayed invested the entire period has lost money, unless they really screwed up. Whenever I hear someone say something like this I know that they are just blowing smoke. Anyone can pick a suitably distant market bottom and claim not to have lost money since then. How have you done since last October?Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I was responding to your statement that, "It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund." If that is off topic, then it went off toipic way before I got here. My point was that given the right timeframes, no one beats the market, certainly not the average investor with $20k in the market and not a lot of inclination or aptitude to actively manage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Ha ha! It does sound funny as "hoilistic stock buying." The thing is there are so many thousands of possible investments, that it is pretty easy to find good investments with good numbers that avoid investing in companies that you do not agree with. In fact it can be a good strategy. Companies who are in some way irresponsible are more often hit with unexpected costs and difficulties that affect their performance --- big pollution cleanup costs, labor problems, government intervention, boycotts, lawsuits. Those kinds of problems can come suddenly and a company that was once prioftiable can see its stock tank in just a single news cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
Investing is mostly about numbers, but just because a company's numbers look good, if it goes against waht you belive, you might not find it to be worth it. There are plenty of responsible companies with good numbers.
I'm not saying that I do a lot of my investing using this as a criterion because most of my investment are in 401k's with limited investment choices. But when I did invest in single stocks in the past, they were all in good, decent responsible companies with good financials. They all made money for me.
And about, "Buy at a low number sell at a high number...seams easy" --- it seems a lot easier than it really is.
Ok I looked it up for you. According to their latest quarterly report:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
thru June 08
total taxes paid $61,702,000,000.
net income $22,570,000,000.
I did not fabricate anything
I agree with you on this one, it was not a tax rebate since you did not have to pay taxes to get it, you only had to file taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
I'm glad to see you've decided you know what *I'm* doing. Thank you for being pompous enough to assume you know me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Honestly I'm not going to go into the details of my portfolio performance. For one it is none of your business and secondly you will find some reason to try to call me out as a liar simply because I know how to invest. I will say this; you're right since October I have not performed particularly well; especially since I'm S&P heavy and I took quite a few hits there; however YTD I am still on top by more than the rate of inflation.
Everyone has the ability to learn and it's not difficult, if anyone should try to invest into the market either by themselves or through the use of a mutual fund I feel it is important they know exactly what is happening and what their money is doing.Quote:
My point was that given the right timeframes, no one beats the market, certainly not the average investor with $20k in the market and not a lot of inclination or aptitude to actively manage it.
:hippy:
As far as blowing smoke up your ass... I assure you I'm not, but again you don't know me so I have no way prove it and the same is true vice versa :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Ha ha! Daihashi, dude, you slay me sometimes! When I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I was referring to this absurd statement by McDanger:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
And I was making fun of him not wanting to post any backup for his absurd "facts." I was being sacrastic. If he wants to make these kinds of claims and declare he is not backing them up, then it should be fine for me to say they are not true and declare I am not going to back it up either.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
And all sarcasm aside, I still do not believe the part in bold about oil companies paying 60% of their profits in taxes. I have nothing to back it up, but I do not believe oil companies pay 60% of their profit in taxes. Unless someone can back up that statement, I choose not to believe it, even if I do have 2 fingers and should be able to look it up myself.
Actually.. I'm not sure I believe that number either. I would like to see some sourced information on that. However I do believe it is a high number.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
This does not look right to me. How can they pay $62 billion in taxes on $23 billion in net income. That's not a 60% rate like you said, that's almost 300% --- they are going in the hole $39 billion each quarter to pay taxes? I think that is wrong. When you post the numbers, please post a link as well. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
I do not presume to know what you are doing. My comment was that if you say you haven't lost money in the stock market since 2002, that is not saying alot. 2002 was a market bottom, and if you have lost money between then and now you have radically underformed the overall market -- and yes, you should definitely consider other kinds of investing.Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I certainly respect your right not to discuss your personal finances, but you are the one who brought it up. You have significantly more than $20k invested, and you haven't lost money since 2002 and you tooks some hits since last october, but you are still ahead YTD --- me too! On all points! We are like investment twins!Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Back to the original thread, I am not in favor of a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and I am not in favor of a special rebate to help people pay for higher energy prices. However, I would not mind seeing many of the tax breaks that go to oil companies and the other public subsidies in the form of extremely cheap oil leases go away. These companies make enough money without tax breaks and subsidized leases.
If the government wants to give away rebates to taxpayers, they should rebate the cost of something that is a real investment and has a real future, like a home solar power system, solar water heater, home insulation, electric car, etc. If they want to subsidize an energy industry, subsidize one with a future, like a solar thermal power station, or a wind farm, or a wave energy system.
"Nice post douche. An entire post solely commenting on me, nothing to do with the thread. Excellent, I suppose you are the shining example of forum behavior. Maybe you should worry about yourself."
Wow you are a class act 818. Negative rep in which you call me a douche.
I read these threads out of interest and to learn. Is that OK?
Character...now there is an important issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
I thought that if you had something negative to say to someone, the "NEGATIVE REP" button was the right way to do it as opposed to making a post about it within a thread that is about political feelings on big oil (in this case), twice. :thumbsup: Whatever floats your boat I guess. If it makes you feel any better now I am a douche for making an off topic post too! hip hip hooray!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
This is not exactly the same thing, but one of the ideas that is very popular in europe these days is the idea that the producer of an item should include the cost of its disposal in the price and then be reponsible for taking it back when the conusmer is done with it. Many of the real costs of producing something are not captured in the price charged, and disposal is one of them. This is one of the reasons we are sold so much short-lived, highly-disposable, and inexpensive crap --- the cost of the waste is not captured in the price paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by allrollsin21
Returning to your examples, you mentioned a gallon of gas and a tee shirt. The price of a gallon of gas does not include the cost of the pollution associated with producing it, or using it. Those added costs are hard to quantify, but the are real.
The tee-shirt example is easier to understand. The price of a tee shirt made overseas does not capture the costs that would be added to it if it were produced in the US --- mostly costs associated with fair labor practices that are required or expected within the US. With regards to the tee-shirt and the other cheap Walmart crap bargains, Americans seem to want it both ways. We complain about our jobs going overseas, but we would go completely ape-shit crazy if we were asked to pay the price of a tee shirt made here in the US by an adult American making at least minimum wage, working an 8-hour day, with decent health insurance, disability insurance, Workers Comp, and Social Security. The only way we can get $4 tee shirts is by having them made overseas by children who work 12 hours a day for pennies and without any kind of healthcare or other benefits. So the way it works now is that those added costs are not captured in the price --- they are paid by the American who lost his job and by the kid overseaas working in a sweatshop under unfair labor conditions.