Biden's Stimulus- He's Screwing Us Already

[Stewy]

(02-27-2021, 12:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I have an amazing investor- one that has won regional awards- but even he can't avoid certain things.

Sure he can because it's your money and your fear.  If you fear what is going to come from the market so much them TELL HIM to move it to conservative govt bonds, which almost NEVER lose money.

It's your money.  Your investor works for you, not the other way around.

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2021, 12:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: Sure he can because it's your money and your fear.  If you fear what is going to come from the market so much them TELL HIM to move it to conservative govt bonds, which almost NEVER lose money.

It's your money.  Your investor works for you, not the other way around.

This.  If your award winning investment advisor tells you the market is going to collapse under Biden then he should be moving your investment into bonds.

[BFritz21]

(02-27-2021, 12:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: Sure he can because it's your money and your fear.  If you fear what is going to come from the market so much them TELL HIM to move it to conservative govt bonds, which almost NEVER lose money.

It's your money.  Your investor works for you, not the other way around.

If I was qualified to be an investor, I wouldn't need him, and neither would other people.

Government bonds don't make as much money and I was making a lot of it before Biden came into office.

[Benton]

(02-27-2021, 01:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If I was qualified to be an investor, I wouldn't need him, and neither would other people.

Government bonds don't make as much money and I was making a lot of it before Biden came into office.

But that's the thing. They don't make as much because your risk is lower. The higher the risk, the greater the reward... Or loss.

In my 20s I had a lot invested, split pretty evenly between high risk and low risk. The low risk never lost money, the high risk stuff was constantly in flux. I cashed everything out around 30 when I got married. In the 9-10 years, the high risk made more but if I had cashed it out a few years before that, it would've made less. That's just how it works. 

If there was no risk and everybody made "free" money, all we'd have to do is invest in the stock market. But as somebody else said, you're essentially just betting on businesses. Safer bets have lower risk/reward. 

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2021, 01:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was making a lot of it before Biden came into office.

The market has gone up 4000 points since Biden won the election.

If your investment advisor is as smart as you claim then you should have been making a lot of money since he beat YTrump.

[BFritz21]

(02-27-2021, 01:17 PM)Benton Wrote: But that's the thing. They don't make as much because your risk is lower. The higher the risk, the greater the reward... Or loss.

In my 20s I had a lot invested, split pretty evenly between high risk and low risk. The low risk never lost money, the high risk stuff was constantly in flux. I cashed everything out around 30 when I got married. In the 9-10 years, the high risk made more but if I had cashed it out a few years before that, it would've made less. That's just how it works. 

If there was no risk and everybody made "free" money, all we'd have to do is invest in the stock market. But as somebody else said, you're essentially just betting on businesses. Safer bets have lower risk/reward. 

A good president that knows what he's doing in a capitalistic economy would set taxes and policies that promote growth and income because people at the top gaining wealth means that they hire more people to work more and then people have more purchasing power, which makes stocks go up, and it's a cycle that benefits everyone.

A good president would also be mentally capable and wouldn't have people fearing him making delusional decisions or just having the people above him pulling his strings to make decisions that lose them money.

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2021, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A good president that knows what he's doing in a capitalistic economy would set taxes and policies that promote growth and income because people at the top gaining wealth means that they hire more people to work more and then people have more purchasing power, which makes stocks go up, and it's a cycle that benefits everyone.

That is not what happens at all.  When we enact policies that help people at the top they continue to suppress wages as much as possible.  This is not just a theory.  It is a fact proven by what has happened over the last 40-50 years here in America.  The  rich are getting richer while the middle class has seen their wealth drop.

[Benton]

(02-27-2021, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A good president that knows what he's doing in a capitalistic economy would set taxes and policies that promote growth and income because people at the top gaining wealth means that they hire more people to work more and then people have more purchasing power, which makes stocks go up, and it's a cycle that benefits everyone.

A good president would also be mentally capable and wouldn't have people fearing him making delusional decisions or just having the people above him pulling his strings to make decisions that lose them money.

Eh, we've tried trickle down economics since the 80s. Considering the growing wage gap, shrinking of middle class jobs and stagnation of wealth, it hasn't worked. 

A good president would fix that. We haven't had one yet.

Edit to add: honestly, Im still baffled how anyone thinks that works. We've had record stock market highs multiple times in recent decades. Wages have stayed mostly flat, buying power has gone down, etc. On the flip side, taxes on upper earners haven't been so low since the great depression.  There is no incentive for the ultra rich to invest their money in workers or the economy

[Belsnickel]

(02-27-2021, 06:28 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, we've tried trickle down economics since the 80s. Considering the growing wage gap, shrinking of middle class jobs and stagnation of wealth, it hasn't worked. 

A good president would fix that. We haven't had one yet.

Edit to add: honestly, Im still baffled how anyone thinks that works. We've had record stock market highs multiple times in recent decades. Wages have stayed mostly flat, buying power has gone down, etc. On the flip side, taxes on upper earners haven't been so low since the great depression.  There is no incentive for the ultra rich to invest their money in workers or the economy

[Stewy]

(02-27-2021, 01:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If I was qualified to be an investor, I wouldn't need him, and neither would other people.

Government bonds don't make as much money and I was making a lot of it before Biden came into office.

And if you understood the market at all you'd understand that the President in office has NOTHING to do with the market.  NOTHING.  Let me repeat NOTHING.  Do I need to say it again?  Nothing!!!!

2000-2008 lead by Bush, a republican, ending in one of the greatest crashes in the market since the great depression in 2008.  All under the watch of a republican.  2009-2016 was unprecedented growth....under a Democrat - Obama.

Brad get a f u k i n clue.  Who is in office means nothing to the market.  NOTHING!  History supports this.  Do a little more than reading than CPAC, FOX and ultra conservative websites.  You'll be happier.  Trust me.

Lastly the market is cyclical.  It is due for a pull back if not a crash soon.  Constant growth in the market is no sustainable.  Again, history supports this.  If you value your money, have you money manager go conservative.  The coming crash is inevitable, like Thanos.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-28-2021, 05:36 AM)Stewy Wrote: And if you understood the market at all you'd understand that the President in office has NOTHING to do with the market.  NOTHING.  Let me repeat NOTHING.  Do I need to say it again?  Nothing!!!!

2000-2008 lead by Bush, a republican, ending in one of the greatest crashes in the market since the great depression in 2008.  All under the watch of a republican.  2009-2016 was unprecedented growth....under a Democrat - Obama.

Brad get a f u k i n clue.  Who is in office means nothing to the market.  NOTHING!  History supports this.  Do a little more than reading than CPAC, FOX and ultra conservative websites.  You'll be happier.  Trust me.

Lastly the market is cyclical.  It is due for a pull back if not a crash soon.  Constant growth in the market is no sustainable.  Again, history supports this.  If you value your money, have you money manager go conservative.  The coming crash is inevitable, like Thanos.

Listen to this man. At least on the market part. I just moved the "safe" bond portion of my 401k back into a more risky fund last week... The only moves I make on the market are the wrong moves. So..

As far as the president having an impact on the market I can't agree with that 100%. Policy definitely has a pretty big effect. Usually unpaid for tax cuts for the rich make bubbles that pop

[Goalpost]

(02-28-2021, 05:36 AM)Stewy Wrote: And if you understood the market at all you'd understand that the President in office has NOTHING to do with the market.  NOTHING.  Let me repeat NOTHING.  Do I need to say it again?  Nothing!!!!

2000-2008 lead by Bush, a republican, ending in one of the greatest crashes in the market since the great depression in 2008.  All under the watch of a republican.  2009-2016 was unprecedented growth....under a Democrat - Obama.

Brad get a f u k i n clue.  Who is in office means nothing to the market.  NOTHING!  History supports this.  Do a little more than reading than CPAC, FOX and ultra conservative websites.  You'll be happier.  Trust me.

Lastly the market is cyclical.  It is due for a pull back if not a crash soon.  Constant growth in the market is no sustainable.  Again, history supports this.  If you value your money, have you money manager go conservative.  The coming crash is inevitable, like Thanos.

I would think that policies that include less regulation and less corporate taxes can be market friendly.  If companies margins are improved this yields better benefits in dividends and capital expenditures.

[BFritz21]

(02-28-2021, 05:36 AM)Stewy Wrote: And if you understood the market at all you'd understand that the President in office has NOTHING to do with the market.  NOTHING.  Let me repeat NOTHING.  Do I need to say it again?  Nothing!!!!

2000-2008 lead by Bush, a republican, ending in one of the greatest crashes in the market since the great depression in 2008.  All under the watch of a republican.  2009-2016 was unprecedented growth....under a Democrat - Obama.

Brad get a f u k i n clue.  Who is in office means nothing to the market.  NOTHING!  History supports this.  Do a little more than reading than CPAC, FOX and ultra conservative websites.  You'll be happier.  Trust me.

Lastly the market is cyclical.  It is due for a pull back if not a crash soon.  Constant growth in the market is no sustainable.  Again, history supports this.  If you value your money, have you money manager go conservative.  The coming crash is inevitable, like Thanos.

Internet tough guy.

Let me shut you up with a few simple facts:

Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline, which killed thousands of jobs.  That doesn't effect the economy?  The US having more natural gas wouldn't effect the economy?

Taxes.  While he can't do it on his own, a good POS would be able to get it through, especially if his party controlled the Congress.

Trade deals and how we operate with other countries.

Lots of other ways.

Now, please, leave the discussion to the adults and go try and intimidate other people.

[Tiger Teeth]

(02-28-2021, 11:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Internet tough guy.

Let me shut you up with a few simple facts:

Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline, which killed thousands of jobs.  That doesn't effect the economy?  The US having more natural gas wouldn't effect the economy?

Taxes.  While he can't do it on his own, a good POS would be able to get it through, especially if his party controlled the Congress.

Trade deals and how we operate with other countries.

Lots of other ways.

Now, please, leave the discussion to the adults and go try and intimidate other people.

Brad, you've changed.  Your obsessive hatred for a man you don't even know is very unhealthy.

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2021, 11:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Let me shut you up with a few simple facts:

Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline, which killed thousands of jobs.  That doesn't effect the economy?  The US having more natural gas wouldn't effect the economy?

Cancelling the XL portion of the Keystone pipeline cancelled a few thousand TEMPORARY construction jobs, but it protected thousands of PERMANENT jobs in the trucking and rail business that currently transport that product.

And the XL pipeline has nothing to do with natural gas production or energy independence for the UNited States.  the United States did not even use any of the oils that was being transported in that pipeline.

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2021, 10:59 AM)Goalpost Wrote: I would think that policies that include less regulation and less corporate taxes can be market friendly.  If companies margins are improved this yields better benefits in dividends and capital expenditures.

But "market friendly" does not always mean "growth".  For example recent history has shown that when corporations are given tax breaks they use they often use the extra money for stock buybacks to drive up share prices instead of capital expenditures.  So there is no "growth".  Instead there is just more shifting of the wealth up to the top 5% who own 90% of the stock market. 

[Goalpost]

(02-28-2021, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But "market friendly" does not always mean "growth".  For example recent history has shown that when corporations are given tax breaks they use they often use the extra money for stock buybacks to drive up share prices instead of capital expenditures.  So there is no "growth".  Instead there is just more shifting of the wealth up to the top 5% who own 90% of the stock market. 

See I think earnings are what powers companies.  GE was 60 at one time and dropped as low as about 6.  No amount of buybacks could have saved them.  They reduced capital expenditures to show a better bottom line but this was a false signal, because they were falling further behind their competitors which were still investing in capital expenditures.  Stock buybacks are often a way to show health of a company, much like raising dividends.  But your side of the argument is a reasonable one to debate why stock buy backs happen.  While stock prices can be raised, they are still investing in themselves and their future. And if you buy a lot of your stock and report poor earnings you pay for it.  

[Stewy]

(02-28-2021, 10:38 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Listen to this man. At least on the market part. I just moved the "safe" bond portion of my 401k back into a more risky fund last week... The only moves I make on the market are the wrong moves. So..

As far as the president having an impact on the market I can't agree with that 100%. Policy definitely has a pretty big effect. Usually unpaid for tax cuts for the rich make bubbles that pop

Yeah I exaggerated a bit.  Sorry was tipsy.  

Presidents more usually have short term effects for sure.  Trump created historic volatility with his policies.

[BFritz21]

(02-28-2021, 11:29 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Brad, you've changed.  Your obsessive hatred for a man you don't even know is very unhealthy.

Personal attacks instead of addressing my actual post and the fact that I proved him wrong.

Very mature.

By the way, what have I ever said that even implies that I HATE him?

More empty rhetoric because, like I said and like I believe you've done with 3(?) other posts in this thread, you have nothing of any substance to post.

[Belsnickel]

(02-28-2021, 12:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Cancelling the XL portion of the Keystone pipeline cancelled a few thousand TEMPORARY construction jobs, but it protected thousands of PERMANENT jobs in the trucking and rail business that currently transport that product.

And the XL pipeline has nothing to do with natural gas production or energy independence for the UNited States.  the United States did not even use any of the oils that was being transported in that pipeline.

I was coming here to say that. The job thing is misinformation at best because of the types of jobs lost and the jobs that would've been lost had the pipeline been put in place. Plus, this was Canadian oil headed to refineries on the coasts to be shipped overseas.

(02-28-2021, 01:10 PM)Goalpost Wrote: See I think earnings are what powers companies.  GE was 60 at one time and dropped as low as about 6.  No amount of buybacks could have saved them.  They reduced capital expenditures to show a better bottom line but this was a false signal, because they were falling further behind their competitors which were still investing in capital expenditures.  Stock buybacks are often a way to show health of a company, much like raising dividends.  But your side of the argument is a reasonable one to debate why stock buy backs happen.  While stock prices can be raised, they are still investing in themselves and their future. And if you buy a lot of your stock and report poor earnings you pay for it.  

Earnings power companies, and the market, but the market is not the economy. If these companies were to take these earnings and put them back into the economy through wage increases, other investments, etc., then corporate earnings would really beef up the economy. But instead we see them hoard the wealth, relying on government spending to grow the economy, instead, and not pay into it through the use of tax loopholes.