I Lost A Lot Of Money Today

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2021, 01:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You have a million bucks?

Structured settlement from the wreck.  Even though a judge made a bias decision (best case scenario) and screwed us out of millions more in the actual civil suit, we had a clause in our insurance for if anyone in our family was injured by an uninsured driver.

(05-13-2021, 01:39 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not anymore apparently

Back up over it, barely.

(05-13-2021, 01:53 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: If I was a millionnaire, I'm not sure I would care about minor losses on a such short time span.

And I'm not sure I would try to sell calendars on sports board to make some more bucks.

I'm so lazy.

I'm donating all the money we make off the calendars to charities (aside from paying the models a little, but not even much because they all selected charities to donate to).

Nice try at being a smart ass and failing so you just end up looking like an asshole.

[CJD]

(05-13-2021, 01:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because everyone suffers under more socialized programs.  

I'll take some on the chin if it means what made this country great: people taking chances, great minds producing new things, and not relying on handouts.  

Do you have any evidence that supports this? Or is it just "socialist" fearmongering left over from the red scare/cold war?

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2021, 03:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Do you have any evidence that supports this? Or is it just "socialist" fearmongering left over from the red scare/cold war?

Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Spain, Greece, to name a few.

When you take away incentive, why would anyone try harder to succeed?

[CJD]

(05-13-2021, 03:30 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Spain, Greece, to name a few.

When you take away incentive, why would anyone try harder to succeed?

Okay, so just "socialist" fearmongering left over from the cold war.

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2021, 03:30 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Okay, so just "socialist" fearmongering left over from the cold war.

You ask for evidence, I give you evidence, and you can't counter it with anything.

[Au165]

(05-13-2021, 03:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You ask for evidence, I give you evidence, and you can't counter it with anything.

It's not really evidence though, it's more talking points. You named socialist countries, not socialized programs as your original statement said. Some of the "greatest" eras of America were fueled by "socialist programs". The new deal for example definitely was a "socialist" program that actually helped drive a lot of the country's prosperity through the 50's and 60's. Social Security, another socialist program, that came from it is considered to be paramount to the ability for our elderly to survive. 


"Socialist" is thrown around as a fearmongering term but the reality is most Americans have benefitted from socialist programs, or they will at some point in their life. 

[CJD]

(05-13-2021, 03:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You ask for evidence, I give you evidence, and you can't counter it with anything.

I can't counter with anything because you gave me nothing to counter.

You didn't give evidence. You named a few countries that may or may not have had economic issues at some point in their history and/or you don't like. There's no consistent trend between them. 

North Korea is not even left of center, let alone socialist.  Unless you define socialist as "they claim they're socialist" without even considering their power structures or economy. NK is an authoritarian, nationalistic, hierarchical cult of worship around a hereditary line of successors that claim Godlike status. They're more of a monarchy than they are a socialist country.

Greece was not an issue with socialism, it was an issue of national debt and, in reaction, austerity that led to their economy bottoming out. I also think it was closely tied to the 2008 recession which was firmly rooted in misdeeds and manipulations of capitalists for the purposes of maximizing profits in the short term. 

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in regards to Spain. Are they struggling right now? Because they have a better social safety net than us right now. 

Cuba and Venezuela are obviously socialist/communist and they did struggle in many ways. But you could argue at least a portion of their troubles were due to American interference and embargos because of cold war fear mongering.

And beyond all that, we weren't even talking about socialism. We were talking about socialized programs. As in disability care, universal healthcare, affordable housing, homeless care, welfare, workers comp etc. Things that people who are unable to work would benefit from.

No, what I mean when I say evidence is "Here's a study of the adverse effects caring for the poor and downtrodden of a country has on the nation's economy" or something along those lines. Real numbers or real examples that would indicate that we cannot afford to spend anymore money on helping people because it is somehow bad for them to have a safety net built into society.

Alternatively, if you want to expound upon how the "socialism" in any of the given countries has led to their financial problems, I'd be willing to learn. But without any context or explanation, your list is not only unconvincing. It's downright worthless.

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2021, 03:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: It's not really evidence though, it's more talking points. You named socialist countries, not socialized programs as your original statement said. Some of the "greatest" eras of America were fueled by "socialist programs". The new deal for example definitely was a "socialist" program that actually helped drive a lot of the country's prosperity through the 50's and 60's. Social Security, another socialist program, that came from it is considered to be paramount to the ability for our elderly to survive. 


"Socialist" is thrown around as a fearmongering term but the reality is most Americans have benefitted from socialist programs, or they will at some point in their life. 

More socialized programs leads to socialism.  

Like I said, socialized programs should be safety nets, not the norm for people.  

Those socialized programs are only possible because we have a capitalistic economy that pays for them through being taxed, but, if you tax too much, it takes away the incentives to do more.

[CJD]

(05-13-2021, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: More socialized programs leads to socialism.  

Like I said, socialized programs should be safety nets, not the norm for people.  

Those socialized programs are only possible because we have a capitalistic economy that pays for them through being taxed, but, if you tax too much, it takes away the incentives to do more.

ANOTHER "socialism" fearmongering line left over from the cold war...

[Au165]

(05-13-2021, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: More socialized programs leads to socialism.  

Like I said, socialized programs should be safety nets, not the norm for people.  

Those socialized programs are only possible because we have a capitalistic economy that pays for them through being taxed, but, if you tax too much, it takes away the incentives to do more.

Do you know our entire agriculture industry is propped up by socialism? Capitalism would have caused it to collapse a long time ago because the price of crops at times dropped so low it would have put many, maybe even most, farmers out of business. Rather than letting capitalism kill off our food production, socialism stepped in to subsidize their crops. It has continued ever since as we essentially buy up a bunch of unneeded crops every year to make it viable for people to actually farm. 

As I said, EVERY person in the U.S. benefits from socialistic programs. The capitalistic market would crash the country as a whole if left unchecked. The stock market right now is tanking for many reasons, the economy as a whole though is doing pretty good. Inflation is a concern but that started back in trump with near 0% rates for over a year, and I'm not blaming it made sense at the time. Manufacturing however is booming right now, and many industries are killing it. The idea of "no one wants to work" is a fallacy as unemployment rates are far below levels we have seen throughout most of the 2010's and even 2000's. The employment issues we are seeing now really isn't because people are sitting around collecting checks, many people left the workforce during COVID and aren't coming back (but not collecting checks) while others are struggling to match qualifications with job demands.

Even in bad stock markets though there is money to be made, and you should consult your financial planner about your current strategy. I am up 300% on the account I manage myself this year, although it was 500% before the last hit, using a strategy of hedging against some of the fear-based drops. If you are worried about volatility you can always move your money into more stable positions for now and then move them back into more speculative devices when the political situation is more to your liking.

[Vas Deferens]

you aren't charging people to wave at them? COMMIE

[hollodero]

(05-13-2021, 03:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in regards to Spain. Are they struggling right now? Because they have a better social safety net than us right now. 

Yeah their economy is a bit of a mess. 

It would be a bit one dimensional to blame socialism or socialized programs for that. Most European countries, like mine, have those, and it certainly increases overall life quality. America chose a different metric of success, in this sense it's understandable to refute socialism as making a country or a society weaker. It's not a completely moot point.

On the other hand though, our people seldomly suffer desperation, our young parents get their time to be with their new-born child, those that need medical help get medical help, we have more spare time (at least those that want it) and five weeks of vacation, all of which makes everyone happier, albeit also some lazier. Which means also less hatred, less crime, less mass shootings and killing sprees.
And we pay our share of taxes for that, but yeah we still have filthy rich people around. I for one don't want them to have incentives to put even more effort into it. You don't get filthy rich through working harder, you get filthy rich through scheming and tax evasion and speculation and corruption and such.
Our actually hard working people do quite well, and those that decide 37 hours a week is enough also get by. Which is a reasonable system, allowing you the freedom to be content with 37 hours a week of work and five weeks vacation, having less money, but more life time for family and friends and hobbies and such. But I get that for many Americans this is the description of a failing life and that such persons would need an incentive to work harder by not getting by so easily. I think they don't, but that's a question of ideology probably.

Lastly, I only answered you because of the Spain entry, not to teach you about these things. I thought your response was pretty well thought out.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-13-2021, 09:46 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yep - I hear this a lot. People complain they lost money in the stock market. Ummm..... unless you sold it for less than what you paid for it, you haven't lost anything. Makes me cringe when people panic on their 401k's after it goes down 20-30% and they move it to something safer. Depending on the investor's thinking, this is actually the best time to keep adding cash or dividend reinvestment into it instead of moving it. Yet, age and other things factor heavily on the decision and even then, horrible time to move.

You've lost wealth.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-13-2021, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: More socialized programs leads to socialism.  

Like I said, socialized programs should be safety nets, not the norm for people.  

So you're suddenly on board with defending the police? What's weird is your also for defending fire departments and tearing up all roads and highways, but whatever man - you do you.

It's neat.

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2021, 05:59 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So you're suddenly on board with defending the police? What's weird is your also for defending fire departments and tearing up all roads and highways, but whatever man - you do you.

It's neat.

Yes.  I always defend the police.  Thanks for asking.  I will also always defend the fire department, especially since firefighters pulled me from the car when I was trapped in the backseat and one called Air Care as soon as he got to the scene because he could see that I was in serious trouble.  

Again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to publicly thank them.

However, what I do have a problem with is giving away money to people who aren't willing to work or even try to work.  That's not the government providing a safety net; that's the government giving money away.

[CJD]

(05-13-2021, 04:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah their economy is a bit of a mess. 

It would be a bit one dimensional to blame socialism or socialized programs for that. Most European countries, like mine, have those, and it certainly increases overall life quality. America chose a different metric of success, in this sense it's understandable to refute socialism as making a country or a society weaker. It's not a completely moot point.

On the other hand though, our people seldomly suffer desperation, our young parents get their time to be with their new-born child, those that need medical help get medical help, we have more spare time (at least those that want it) and five weeks of vacation, all of which makes everyone happier, albeit also some lazier. Which means also less hatred, less crime, less mass shootings and killing sprees.
And we pay our share of taxes for that, but yeah we still have filthy rich people around. I for one don't want them to have incentives to put even more effort into it. You don't get filthy rich through working harder, you get filthy rich through scheming and tax evasion and speculation and corruption and such.
Our actually hard working people do quite well, and those that decide 37 hours a week is enough also get by. Which is a reasonable system, allowing you the freedom to be content with 37 hours a week of work and five weeks vacation, having less money, but more life time for family and friends and hobbies and such. But I get that for many Americans this is the description of a failing life and that such persons would need an incentive to work harder by not getting by so easily. I think they don't, but that's a question of ideology probably.

Lastly, I only answered you because of the Spain entry, not to teach you about these things. I thought your response was pretty well thought out.

Thanks for the info. Yea, I mean Brad is trying to make it sound like the moment you help poor people, you're Venezuela and you're ******. I can't help but feel like there's a happy medium that America could strive for.

[Stewy]

(05-13-2021, 07:36 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I killed a possum with a stick once.

More effective and entertaining with a rake.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-13-2021, 06:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes.  I always defend the police.  Thanks for asking.  I will also always defend the fire department, especially since firefighters pulled me from the car when I was trapped in the backseat and one called Air Care as soon as he got to the scene because he could see that I was in serious trouble.  

Again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to publicly thank them.

However, what I do have a problem with is giving away money to people who aren't willing to work or even try to work.  That's not the government providing a safety net; that's the government giving money away.

***** autocorrect.

What i meant was defund, but I'm sure you knew that. But I'll give you this one - thats on me for not proofreading.

Got some boot on your lip, though. Might wanna get a handkerchief for that.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-13-2021, 08:52 PM)Stewy Wrote: More effective and entertaining with a rake.

That sounds like liberal nonsense. Rakes crash the economy!

[BmorePat87]

The Law of Supply and Demand

If our supply of support in the President rises and the stock market increases, we demand more credit for their role in impacting it.

If our supply of support in the President rises and the stock market decreases, we demand less credit for their role in impacting it.

If our supply of support in the President lowers and the stock market increases, we demand less credit for their role in impacting it.

If our supply of support in the President lowers and the stock market decreases, we demand more credit for their role in impacting it.