Can we talk about abstinence

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
19,771
1,011
113
Oceanside,CA
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
It's tough to compete with the Wal-Marts and Home Depot's out there, but it can be done. You need a nitch and be much more service oriented than what they can offer for cheaper prices. Service does matter to many people, and they will keep coming back, if it's better, quicker, more knowledgeable, etc;. It's tougher to compete against corpos, but not impossible if you offer what they can't. Price isn't ALWAYS everything.
As someone who's been openly opposed to raising the minimum wage and gov't mandated healthcare because it hurts small businesses what kind of service do you expect small businesses to provide if they're paying their employees $7.75/hr with no healthcare?

You said earlier in the thread that we should lift up and elevate the poor. I agree but you don't do that by paying them less, gutting all of the social safety nets that are holding them up and most of all gutting public education. You don't make things better by pulling the plug and cutting funding and programs. You reform and invest in them.

Surfdog said:
But, taxation, fees, restrictions and penalties should be limited to business size and/or incomes. A magic number needs to be surpassed to kick in higher taxes, fees, etc;. Where that line is drawn is the tough part. But this is also where lobbiest and politicians start putting out their hands, so it's tough.

I actually think the whole idea of "lobbiests" needs to be thrown out the window.
I agree with almost all of this. Particularly the lobbying part. The best thing we could ever do is kick lobbyists on all sides of the issues out of Washington. Overturn Citizens United and employ real and effective campaign finance reform laws changing the way our politicians run for reelections. What good is an elected official if they spend their days fundraising for reelection and doing the bidding of those who are gonna pay for their next campaign. We need to change that. Congressman and Senators need to spend their time working for their constituents and doing their jobs. Maybe one long single term is the solution. No reelections. But citizens united will be the downfall of this country, I'm sure you can agree on that one right?
If you think Citizens United is the major benefactor of that court ruling, you're only fooling yourself. Or not looking at your own party and how they actually took even more advantage of that ruling in 2014, and vastly outspent/lobbied the repubs prior to that election cycle.

ALL lobbying of politicians, both sides, needs to go away, for ANY kind of campaign reform. Lobbying has bastardized our whole political ideology and will never really change unless its abolished COMPLETELY. This will be tough medicine, for both sides, but it needs to be done. They're addicted to it like the crack whores they all are.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
So now that you're onboard with income inequality watch this and try to put aside that stained word "socialism" and tell me with a straight face that you disagree with what the good man has to say...


He was right then (2003) and he's right now.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
Surfdog said:
Unfortunately for Trlumpkin, he's a sound-bite gift from heaven for MSNBC and other left-leaning media. If you can get a full speech in context, it makes "some" sense, eventually, but he's more of a media bull-dog, than a real, worthy candidate.
No, he doesn't. He's a liar, a thief and an attention whore. He likes to pretend he's a self-made man but he inherited his riches from his Real Estate Tycoon Daddy who made it big building Federal Housing Administration backed housing back in the days following the depression. That's right folks. Government spending. Trump inherited an estimated 40-200 million from Daddy. Just like Mitt Romney who talks about risk taking, Trump never had to take on risk like a small business owner did. If his business failed he was never going to lose the shirt off his back. But just like Mitt he'll tell you otherwise.

Surfdog said:
He's just nipping at the heals of the more mushy moderates and RINO's and not a real contender. He makes a good circus side-show act, but unfortunately not a real representative of the repubs in general.
So which candidate is?

Surfdog said:
The dem majority MSM loves him for it, as he makes a mockery of the more extreme right, and is the gift that keeps on giving, in that aspect. :loser: :rolleyes:
Pretty much every candidate not named Bush should be loved for that very reason. It's a fucking clown show aside for Jeb who these clowns are doing a fine job of making look reasonable and moderate.

Trump
Cruz
Carson
Christie
Graham
Huckabee
Jindal
Paul
Rubio

You can't be serious? These asshats actually make Jeb look good. And this country needs another Bush like a hole in the head.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
Surfdog said:
Bernie is the Trump of the left. Lot of ideas, but no real world solutions.
You can't be serious. :foreheadslap:

What solutions has any GOP candidate pushed? On the campaign trail or in their previous positions as legislators or governors??

Edit: Here's a record of Bernie's "solutions"... https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
19,771
1,011
113
Oceanside,CA
frvcvs said:
So now that you're onboard with income inequality watch this and try to put aside that stained word "socialism" and tell me with a straight face that you disagree with what the good man has to say...


He was right then (2003) and he's right now.
"Income inequality" is the wrong focus to the wrong problem. Income GROWTH is the problem. Taking away from the wealthy, a majority who worked hard, took major risks and sacrifices in building that wealth, to redistribute to the poor that can't or won't strive for that, is still socialism no matter how you homeslice it. We all still have the freedom to pursue that wealth, if we want to or not.

You're paid what you are worth to society and the marketplace.

We could start with grossly overpaid actors, musicians, sports players and the like first, if you'd like?

But no, we need to focus on the owners of vastly successful businesses first. Tear them down, and throw it to the masses. Weeeeeeeeee!
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
19,771
1,011
113
Oceanside,CA
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Bernie is the Trump of the left. Lot of ideas, but no real world solutions.
You can't be serious. :foreheadslap:

What solutions has any GOP candidate pushed? On the campaign trail or in their previous positions as legislators or governors??

Edit: Here's a record of Bernie's "solutions"... https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033
Your list above has left off a few that you, like the left-leaning media, have conveniently decided to ignore, and hope to go away.

Like Walker and Fiorina.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
Surfdog said:
frvcvs said:
So now that you're onboard with income inequality watch this and try to put aside that stained word "socialism" and tell me with a straight face that you disagree with what the good man has to say...


He was right then (2003) and he's right now.
"Income inequality" is the wrong focus to the wrong problem. Income GROWTH is the problem. Taking away from the wealthy, a majority who worked hard, took major risks and sacrifices in building that wealth, to redistribute to the poor that can't or won't strive for that, is still socialism no matter how you homeslice it. We all still have the freedom to pursue that wealth, if we want to or not.
It sounds like what you think I'm advocating is some form of communism where no man/woman should be allowed to earn more than the next. I'm not. What I'm talking about is the system where the deck is stacked in favor of the wealthy. Yes, it's still possible for people to ascend from nothing to great fortune in our existing system. Look at folks like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example. What I'm talking about is that system that affords those once they're up there on top of the heap to keep earning exponentially more. That my friend is called income inequality.

surfdog said:
You're paid what you are worth to society and the marketplace.

We could start with grossly overpaid actors, musicians, sports players and the like first, if you'd like?
Sure I'll bite. Yeah there is a valid point to be made when an athlete is signing a $300 Million contract and the median income of a school teacher is something like $53,590. At the same time if we lower athletes salaries out of the goodness of their hearts that's just more money for the owners to put in their pockets. It's not like they're going to accommodate us with lower ticket prices are they? That's not how capitalism works. Same goes for actors. You think theaters would go back to $5 ticket prices if Tom Cruise started taking a million a movie instead of $25 Million?

surfdog said:
But no, we need to focus on the owners of vastly successful businesses first. Tear them down, and throw it to the masses. Weeeeeeeeee!
So we should continue to protect the Home Depot's and the Wal Marts? I knew your anti corporate giant rant was too good to be true.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
Surfdog said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Bernie is the Trump of the left. Lot of ideas, but no real world solutions.
You can't be serious. :foreheadslap:

What solutions has any GOP candidate pushed? On the campaign trail or in their previous positions as legislators or governors??

Edit: Here's a record of Bernie's "solutions"... https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033
Your list above has left off a few that you, like the left-leaning media, have conveniently decided to ignore, and hope to go away.

Like Walker and Fiorina.
I don't know much about Fiorina besides that she couldn't beat Barbara Boxer. And Scott Walker? Now there's a guy who's really out there to do something about income inequality. Nothing he stands for has anything to do with the interests of small businesses and income inequality. He's a figurehead for one thing and that's the interest of the Koch Bros and the fossil fuel/petrochemical industries.
 

sirfun

Kelly Slater status
Apr 26, 2008
9,815
965
113
U.S.A.
frvcvs said:
So now that you're onboard with income inequality watch this and try to put aside that stained word "socialism" and tell me with a straight face that you disagree with what the good man has to say...


(damn)

He was right then (2003) and he's right now.
 

test_article

Kelly Slater status
Sep 25, 2009
8,863
295
83
Body of Christ, Texas
FecalFace said:
Steak said:
Better off selling/divesting of all of your current American assets and buying gold if you
truly want to come out ahead in the long run.
Uh oh, somebody subscribed to the Stansberry Dumbass Scam Report. :loser:
Gold is not an investment, but its price data is used as a fear gauge. That's why so many gold brokers advertise on Fox News. Or maybe Fox News sells fear because that's what their advertisers want.
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
19,771
1,011
113
Oceanside,CA
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
frvcvs said:
So now that you're onboard with income inequality watch this and try to put aside that stained word "socialism" and tell me with a straight face that you disagree with what the good man has to say...


He was right then (2003) and he's right now.
"Income inequality" is the wrong focus to the wrong problem. Income GROWTH is the problem. Taking away from the wealthy, a majority who worked hard, took major risks and sacrifices in building that wealth, to redistribute to the poor that can't or won't strive for that, is still socialism no matter how you homeslice it. We all still have the freedom to pursue that wealth, if we want to or not.
It sounds like what you think I'm advocating is some form of communism where no man/woman should be allowed to earn more than the next. I'm not. What I'm talking about is the system where the deck is stacked in favor of the wealthy. Yes, it's still possible for people to ascend from nothing to great fortune in our existing system. Look at folks like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example. What I'm talking about is that system that affords those once they're up there on top of the heap to keep earning exponentially more. That my friend is called income inequality.

surfdog said:
You're paid what you are worth to society and the marketplace.

We could start with grossly overpaid actors, musicians, sports players and the like first, if you'd like?
Sure I'll bite. Yeah there is a valid point to be made when an athlete is signing a $300 Million contract and the median income of a school teacher is something like $53,590. At the same time if we lower athletes salaries out of the goodness of their hearts that's just more money for the owners to put in their pockets. It's not like they're going to accommodate us with lower ticket prices are they? That's not how capitalism works. Same goes for actors. You think theaters would go back to $5 ticket prices if Tom Cruise started taking a million a movie instead of $25 Million?

surfdog said:
But no, we need to focus on the owners of vastly successful businesses first. Tear them down, and throw it to the masses. Weeeeeeeeee!
So we should continue to protect the Home Depot's and the Wal Marts? I knew your anti corporate giant rant was too good to be true.
Big corpos come and go. I'm sure I could name more than a few that were huge players 20 years ago, and now they are poof or a shell of their former or sold off selfs. They and we adapt and change with the markets or die.

Big corpos only take advantage of what governments let them. We could go all Bernie on them, I suppose? :bricks:

And what will that do to job growth, unless the government becomes the one doing the hiring?
 

oneula

Miki Dora status
Jun 3, 2004
3,895
1,507
113
btw
the question should be if you can afford not to why venture into unprotected sex and have an unwanted pregnancy. The problems are only to escalate in the following decades to come rich or not. Very selfish and self centered but that's palinism at its core I guess.
how this diverged to economics i don't quite understand but if you aren't in the top 1% of the top 1% you aren't even in the game cause its rigged always has been. If you're in you are in if your aren't then you aren't. Playing the market is just like going to the casino, house wins the majority of the time. And in the end a great entrepeneur is only gonna get bought out when they become a threat. They are only startups/R&D for the big boys that's all. In the end only size matters.

this discussion sounds like this recent on TV one regarding the "flash boys" unveiling where the argument actually stopped some of the trading on floor as brokers got caught up in all the name calling. Who's right? Who's wrong? hard to tell as motives are motives

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcpmHyPD_PY[/video]


 

Pissbiscuit

Miki Dora status
Jun 25, 2008
3,871
0
0
904
oneula said:
Playing the market is just like going to the casino
If you treat the stock market like the casino that can be the case.

If you go diverse portfolio and have a time horizon longer than it takes to roll some dice or knock up Bristol Palin, eg your mid-20s to mid-60s, the market's still the best wealth creator going.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
68,710
4,433
113
HB, CA
Pissbiscuit said:
oneula said:
Playing the market is just like going to the casino
If you treat the stock market like the casino that can be the case.

If you go diverse portfolio and have a time horizon longer than it takes to roll some dice or knock up Bristol Palin, eg your mid-20s to mid-60s, the market's still the best wealth creator going.
Nope. Casino
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
47,976
4,561
113
Pissbiscuit said:
oneula said:
Playing the market is just like going to the casino
If you treat the stock market like the casino that can be the case.

If you go diverse portfolio and have a time horizon longer than it takes to roll some dice or knock up Bristol Palin, eg your mid-20s to mid-60s, the market's still the best wealth creator going.
Do you think you're playing with the same deck of cards and by the same rules as the high rollers?
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
19,771
1,011
113
Oceanside,CA
Once you learn the games they play, you can benefit the same way they do.

Knowledge is power.

Nothing is a sure thing, like most avenues in life, but you can play smart, instead of just "playing" blind.

Ifall's and frvcvs "industry" pensions are riding on it. So can you, if you play smart.
 

Pissbiscuit

Miki Dora status
Jun 25, 2008
3,871
0
0
904
frvcvs said:
Pissbiscuit said:
oneula said:
Playing the market is just like going to the casino
If you treat the stock market like the casino that can be the case.

If you go diverse portfolio and have a time horizon longer than it takes to roll some dice or knock up Bristol Palin, eg your mid-20s to mid-60s, the market's still the best wealth creator going.
Do you think you're playing with the same deck of cards and by the same rules as the high rollers?
Do I have access to HFT from my server farm across the street from the NYSE? No.
Do I have capital sufficient to get special offers on preferred Goldman Stock and bank a natty dividend because I'm Warren Buffet? No.

Are my S&P 500 index fund and dividend-paying means of production going to completely murder, with zero effort or work on my part, any other asset class over a working life -> retirement time horizon?

Pretty good chance.

Will I ever have to evict tenants from a 1-4 letter ticker symbol?
Will it ever need a roof?
Will it ever need insurance?
Do I get charged property tax?
Will I have to stop surfing/watching youtube/watching surf videos/taking bingers to mow the lawn?

nonononononono

I'm with you guys on Citizens United, big money owning most of both parties including Hillary and whoever the Republican nominee will be, etc. but pick a 40-year period and odds are a benchmark index went up. A bunch. With dividends.