Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 15 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, clambo said:

    I don't make anything up.

    Fortwayne is wrong, Romney knew more about how to grow the economy and he said he would specifically not lower taxes on the rich, he often said that the rich were doing fine and they didn't need help.

    For you and others, wealth is derived from 1. production 2. innovation . Innovation frequently increases productivity.

    Capital for investment is savings of excesss production that is not taxed.

    There is nothing wrong with building and improving infrastructure, but this is not actual production nor does it produce excess capital.

    The reason Microsoft, Apple, Google, HP, eBay, Ford, Oracle others are here is that in the U.S.A. you can actually keep a portion of your property and the founders can get rich.

    Control Point, I live in Santa Cruz and you evidently don't know who lives here.

    Believe it or not, I also have resided in Mexico and am bilingual, so I also know many illegal aliens from Mexico who claimed the earned income credit using ITINs to file and got tons of money.

  • On 15 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, clambo said:

    I know lots of people who are living off uncle Sam and they definitely, positively voted for Obama.

    When Romney said "I want to grow jobs" they all thought to themselves "Oh shit, I don't want to change things, I'm comfortable now!"

    sbh must have forgotten all of the dough Obama and Chew took from taxpayers to give to the guys at Solyndra and other corporate welfare shemes, windmills with GE, etc.

    Corporations and (some) people pay for our 1. war economy 2. huge govt. payroll 3. huge welfare state.

    Taxes on spirits, beer, tobacco, tariffs paid for the govt.s needs from the colonies until WW1.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, clambo said:

    Unless the Democrats lose more power in those elections. Then it's harder to raise taxes.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, clambo said:

    Romney isn't a parasite, he pays taxes.

    Want a parasite? Robert Rubin was paid $120 million by Citibank AFTER the US taxpayer bailed it out for stupidity of people there like Rubin.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, clambo said:

    I didn't write that.

    I am in favor a gasoline tax to support roads for example. I am against a tax to confiscate wealth.

    There was no income tax really until 1913. Previously taxes on sprits, beer, tobacco, were suffient to run things.
    Taxes were added to sales of other things to pay for the war of 1812.
    In 1862 there was a first income tax, (3%) this was also needed to pay for war activities. Later it was repealed in 1895 by the supreme court.
    1913 the 16th amendment was the actual beginning of income tax but much later it was expanded to tax labor.
    The 60's of course had another bunch of wars to pay for; Vietnam, the Cold War, and LBJ/Democrats "War on Poverty".
    The war on poverty can never be won and we will never stop paying for it.
    To me it's interesting that until 1913 the U.S.A. managed to get by without taxing everyone in ever increasing amounts in ever more inventive ways.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, clambo said:

    Taxes are the way wealth is redistributed downward. This is not what they should be used for.

    I have no right to someone else's property or money and neither does the government. Whether the person is the 1%, the 5%, or the 90% doesn't matter.

    I know how the average liberal lefty thinks. They think someone should have his property taken from him for the greater good of society.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in 52% Say Taxes Too High, 54% Say Taxes Fair; Too High But Fair?, clambo said:

    The 50% who pay no taxes must think taxes are "fair".

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Here's why the rest of 2014 will be rough for housing, clambo said:

    Banks don't have enough capital to buy a bunch of houses. They even lack the capital to hang onto the mortgages, they sell them to become MBS.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in I find it interesting...., clambo said:

    The issue is states rights and abuse by the Feds.

    The Feds wanted him off that land, so they charged him *retroactive rent* of $1 million for land his family has ranched for a century.

    It's similar to the Drake's Bay oyster farm fiasco. Liars claimed that harbor seals and eel grass (I am not kidding) were disburbed by oyster farming, however the State of California supports this activity there.

    In Nevada case, the state and the local sheriff (the law of the land) took the Nevada man's side since he 1. paid his taxes 2. obeyed the laws in Nevada.

    I heard that the Feds wanted to lease a giant spot for a Chinese wind farm and this guy is standing in the way.

    The Feds own 88% of Nevada, why are they bothering this man?

  • On 13 Apr 2014 in The densest settlement in the world, clambo said:

    I remember flying into the old airport Kai Tek once and we went right over that crowded spot, it was exciting.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Kathleen Sebelius resigning from top HHS post, clambo said:

    She was sacrificed now so as to lessen the damage in November.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Miss Housing Nirvana Cries Uncle, clambo said:

    The young can't buy because they don't have saved capital for the 20% down payment.
    Then add the up to $10K in fees to buy you're talking money that young people don't have jingling in their jeans.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Miss Housing Nirvana Cries Uncle, clambo said:

    Of course, how can those 92 million people out of the workforce buy a house?

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Bulls Be Prepared To Eat CROW!, clambo said:

    I'm prepared to get rich. The 188% gain in just two years is helping me immensely.

    You should remember where money to buy stocks comes from; it's excess capital saved by someone anywhere on earth.

    Assuming the world GDP is slowly growing, e.g. USA 2% since Obama, this is still growth which translates to growth of savings capital for investment.

    Dividends paid by companies that make stuff like gasoline, soap, toothpaste, food, cableTV, phone service, etc. are 3% or so, while interest rates are much lower. So, what will investors worldwide do with their excess capital?

    There can be a zombie apocalypse and people will still use their cell phones and drive cars until the zombie rips the things out of their hands.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in 85% of Pension Funds to Fail in Three Decades, clambo said:

    I don't care, I am my own "pension fund".

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Under-$4 gasoline prices fade down memory lane, clambo said:

    All cars and trucks can run on natural gas. Where I live, all the buses run on it and various trucks for businesses, etc.

    There is enough natural gas under our feet to run everything for a few hundred years. When I told this to one of my liberal friends "Yes, but then what??"

    Today the Honda Civic has a natural gas model, others will follow.

    Natural gas is cool because we can not only retrieve it, we can make our own but it's of course a bit of work to do it.

    You could make more methane with garbage, sewage waste, farm waste, etc also if you wanted to. That's going to be handy in 200 years when the stuff under the ground is hard to find.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Toxic loan peddlers failed to foresee the housing crash, clambo said:

    The problem was a "perfect storm" of greed, stupidity and lack of brains up the food chain. It was a house of cards built onto a false premise; house values never fall.
    The shaky foundation was sub-prime mortgages. These should not have been originated but as we know banks were sued for not lending to people, it was considered "racist" or "redlining" etc.
    The other was everyone was getting rich on fees originating mortgages. The people in the business were not regulated or licensed in any way. Used car salesmen started being mortgage brokers.
    The math geniuses in Wall St. thought that you could package the bad mortgage tranches with good mortgages and this mixture could be sold to worldwide investors.
    Worldwide there were many people seeking income and willing to buy SBS. The capital available for mortgages was huge.
    An insurance type device called "Credit default swap" was then traded, which in other types of insurance would have been illegal because people trading had no "insurable interest" since they actually didn't own the mortgage security. It was as if you could trade the life insurance policy on your neighbor even though the beneficiary should be his wife.
    The root of the disaster for banks was during Clinton; Rubin, Weill and others thought banks should be able to get back into trading, (gambling) rather than be stuck simply being banks. So, it took 9 years or so for the chickens to come home to roost, Glass-Steagal was replaced with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999.
    I blame banks the most, since we all know that the average slob would take free credit in most cases people are acquisitive.
    Greenspan said after the disaster he was surprised that banks didn't take steps to protect themselves and went bankrupt.
    What bothers me is also the banks have fucked up things in the U.S.A. on previous occasions.
    I am incensed that the U.S. taxpayers bailed out bankrupt Citi and later they paid Rubin $120 million bucks. The clowns at Fannie and Freddie were also paid tens of millions in salaries.

  • On 10 Apr 2014 in America in rapid decline, clambo said:

    Funny, tovarichpeter lives nearby one of the healtiest, cleanest, most beautiful cities with the most agreeable climate with a diverse population with amazing variety of estaurants, gorgeous views and relative safety and he is concerned about our decline.
    Does no one else see the irony?
    My friend who lives in Monterrey Mexico would say her country was in decline and we live in paradise.
    It's relative but compared to the other two countries I have lived in, U.S.A. still tops them.

  • On 10 Apr 2014 in Foreclosure Starts Increase in 40% of States, clambo said:

    The fucked up part is that we taxpayers will eventually be on the hook, not the banks, for the lost money.

    This is why I am pissed off at the banks; they contributed to the problem or caused the problem, lost their ass but taxpayers paid for it.

    Everyone in Fannie&Freddie and banking has an interest in these "zombie houses" not being foreclosed en masse, it could upset the apple cart again.

    Banks have a tough time foreclosing in some states. The guy was quoted from a bank that he never wants to originate any loan that he'll have to foreclose on someday.

    Deadbeats fight tooth and nail if they can legally to never leave their houses.

  • On 10 Apr 2014 in Foreclosure Starts Increase in 40% of States, clambo said:

    Oh my.
    Say, does anyone know if they are foreclosing on the condom factory "over in Jersey" where Bob Sacamano works? Kramer wants to know.

  • On 10 Apr 2014 in need advice from you awesome PatNetters, clambo said:

    60 months is a long time and that's a lousy return if you don't need the money handy.
    The CD is you lending your cash to a bank for it to use, essentially for free, while you are locked in. If this appeals to you, re-read the previous sentence.
    The time frame for making a stock investment is generally 5+ years, since stocks can fluctuate down, not just up.

    If you are afraid to see the account value fluctuate down, then you can buy a bond fund, or a balanced fund at Vanguard or T.Rowe Price, or similar. I prefer Vanguard because the fees are low and bond funds don't return so much.

    If I found a suitcase with money in it, I would buy Vanguard Wellington (balanced), or buy Vanguard Dividend Growth and forget it. There are other choices, a fund like T.Rowe Price Capital Appreciation is also a balanced fund, i.e. has a bond component. Balanced funds have the secondary objective of "capital preservation"=try not to see the value fall dramatically, hence the bonds component.

    Wellington is a bit interesting because the stocks in it are only quality companies, and the bonds in it also.

    If you are not afraid to see some fluctuation down of the account value which will happen from time to time, you can go more agressive in a stock fund which isn't balanced. There are other stock funds that are cool like Fidelity Contrafund, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund.

    The more you fear seeing the account fluctuate down, the more you move from the stock investments towards bond investments.

    Today since interest rates are so low, I like stock investments. Also, because of your age you can compound a stock mutual fund and have fantastic results over a couple of decades.

    If you want to make something but want to worry less, you always have the option of bond funds. You could also make your own "balanced" fund with Dividend Growth Fund, then add a bond fund in the proportion that you like.

    Your making money on your investment and having a low financial risk tolerance are conflicting. Stocks can appreciate capital, but if you fear them then stick to blue chip stocks that pay dividends, or buy a balanced fund.

    The entire "chunk of change" doesn't need to be invested in stocks or funds, you'll like to keep some in a money market account just to feel safe.

  • On 9 Apr 2014 in U.S. National Debt clock just keeps on ticking..., clambo said:

    Bill, interest paid on the debt to foreigners does actually disappear from our economy.

    I don't know what you are trying to get across, are you in favor of $17,000 billion of debt?

    Taxes paid to service this debt are capital that could be saved and invested in more useful areas. It's a very inefficient use of captial to borrow money in order to pay interest on previously borrowed capital.

  • On 9 Apr 2014 in Mortgage applications decreased 1.6 percent from one week earlier, clambo said:

    Maybe those 92 million people out of the workforce are part of the problem, and the millions of illegal workers who displaced them are mostly renters.

  • On 9 Apr 2014 in NeighborWorks: 1 in 3 adult Americans has no emergency savings, clambo said:

    It's people's nature to not save, it's like entropy increasing naturally.
    It takes discipline to save money. It's a decision you must make, there are many outside influences for you to spend all of it.
    Ads, females, peers, all may judge you or worse call you a "cheapskate" which these days doesn't carry such a stigma.
    I had a yuppie female visit me from Mexico's richest town. She was a bit snobby. I showed her the Capitola Goodwill. She loved some stuff she found and was amazed. I had to buy her another suitcase to take her shit home when she left: Briggs&Riley for $7 ($480 new)

  • On 9 Apr 2014 in The Current State of the Housing Market, clambo said:

    I copy/pasted the important passages for you.

    Tatupu, I am mystified by your attitude but I realize this is the internet.

    I have no interest in anyone believing nor disbelieving me, I don't care.

    Here's a link. If you forward to pg. 5 you'll see some info.

    $2.51 trillion sub-prime+$3.035 trillion Alt A=$5.545 trillion.
    Fed total estimate=$9.42 trillion.
    The data are as of 2008.
    http://www.aei.org/files/2011/02/09/Pinto%20Government-Housing-Policies-in-the-Lead-up-to-the-Financial-Crisis-3-Memoranda-2.5.11-rev.7.25.11.pdf

    My "mystery documents" may be more recent,

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 517 milliseconds to create.