- On 20 May 2013
in
The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion,
bob2356 said:
I think that's a bit naive and very easy to say after the fact. It you'll remember, GE was afraid it wouldn't be able to make payroll at the height of the panic.
This wasn't everyday. To pretend it was is just wrong.
What makes you so confident it's after the fact? If banks truly had to be bailed out (doubtful) to save the financial system then they should have been nationalized, broken up, and sold off just like the savings & loans with the RTC. With people going to jail like the savings & loans. Many people said so in 2007 including me. Rewarding failure will only result in bigger failures. The TBTF banks are larger and more vulnerable now than 2007. Good job fixing the system for both the bush & obama teams (that's sarcasm in case you missed it).
- On 20 May 2013
in
Benghazi Backfires on Republicans as Democrats Eviscerate Issa and the GOP,
bob2356 said:
Wtf, is wrongwong even talking about ?
It's always a very deep mystery wtf wrongwong is talking about.
- On 17 May 2013
in
Obama administration seizes 2 months of phone records of A.P. journalists,
bob2356 said:
Does anyone deny that the right wing media helps create an environment that makes our insane right wing house of reps possible ? If they weren't using fear, hate, lies, fundamentalist BS, and general ignorance peddeling, as prominent themes, it would be a different story.
No, insane amounts of corporate money makes our insane right wing house possible. The right wing media is just a convenient tool to help the process along.
- On 17 May 2013
in
Obama administration seizes 2 months of phone records of A.P. journalists,
bob2356 said:
No, because of the success of propaganda in Nazi Germany, which effectively brainwashed the majority of citizens in a technological 1st world nation into committing evil atrocity. Because of the success of propaganda in North Korea which has brainwashed their citizens into supporting their own starvation. Because propaganda works.
Anyone who thinks the media in this country cannot become a serious threat is really REALLY ignorant of history and a fool.
You are much more confused than usual. The thread is about the government asserting power by attacking the media and trying to intimidate it using "national security" as a smokescreen. In Nazi Germany and North Korea the government was/is the media. I can't believe you are so enthralled with Obama you can't tell the difference. The serious threat is the intimidation and control of the media, all the media liberal or conservative, by government in order to operate at its' will in secret. Like in Nazi Germany and North Korea. Anyone that doesn't understand that is REALLY ignorant of history and a fool.
I really don't see how you view the right wing media as a tool of government since they spend an enormous amount of time with government conspiracy stuff and anti government vitriol. Kind of contradictory positions don't you think?
- On 17 May 2013
in
Reagan was Great president.,
bob2356 said:
Spare me your partisan politics. Reagan took care of Americans, lunch wasn't free there was a huge deficit, but life in America did get better. Job situation improved, incomes improved, living standards improved.
Reagan spent 4 trillion in borrowed money, the economy soared then crashed. Bush II spent 4 trillion in borrowed money, The economy soared then crashed. See any pattern here?
- On 17 May 2013
in
Obama administration seizes 2 months of phone records of A.P. journalists,
bob2356 said:
I don't care what they did and why. I only care that their actions were legal.
That's really sad that you can't distinguish between legal proper procedure as practiced since the start of the republic and a technically legal sleazebag weasel deal end run around the bill of rights. Go team Obama, rah, rah, rah.
So as long as the laws keep changing one step ahead of the fact you won't mind anything the government does to you? Like screw up and hold you by mistake for years without access to courts or a lawyer. I really hope that you don't have a disgruntled tenant call you in to homeland security as a terrorist one day.
You are obviously clueless that the bill of rights was created to protect you in case some agency screws up or someone tries screw you using law enforcement. All that the government has to do now is say "national security" and all that protection goes away. Do you believe that the agencies aren't going to grab even more power going forward aided and abetted all the way by Obama?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Obama administration seizes 2 months of phone records of A.P. journalists,
bob2356 said:
So the answer is no. The press has absolutely no expectations that they can receive criminal leaks without the government going after their records.
Did the government conduct the search with due process? We'll find out however the action itself is perfectly reasonable.
Your arguments don't hold any water.
If you could stop being a shill for Obama for 2 seconds you might try looking at what the justice department actually did and why. The issue was never that they executed a subpoena for phone records. The issue is that they went directly to the phone providers with a secret subpoena without ever letting AP or the reporters involved know about it. (BTW this was very likely in violation of DOJ's own guidelines). Why not serve a subpoena to the reporters directly as has always been the normal procedure? Because then the DOJ would then be subject to a court review of their actions. This all about sidestepping the courts and doing whatever DOJ likes without any oversight.
In the larger picture this is a just one more example of the fact that "national security" has become a code word for government agencies being able to operate in secret without any oversight therefore sidestepping basic constitutional rights. It's all about grabbing power. Anyone that believes that national security couldn't be served while observing the constitution is a fool and deserves the government he eventually ends up with.
- On 14 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
bob2356 said:
I can't believe that anyone's life is so dull and meaningless they actually post responses to bgamall's nuttiness. Don't feed trolls.
- On 13 May 2013
in
The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion,
bob2356 said:
There are 114,761,359 households in the U.S. This means that you, personally, lost $252,698.30 bailing out greedy ass bankers.
I hate bankers but this is the stupidest article posted to patnet ever. Add up all the loans made without backing out the repayments? So if you loan out a 100k, get paid back a 100k then it cost 100k? Just stupid. The cost is zero.
Almost as stupid it IWOG's global bank failure boogeyman. Bullshit. If the bad banks had to operate in chapter 11 and be broken up the world would not have ended. The sun would rise, people would eat, sleep, and shit. The only result would have been lots of incompetent banksters rightfully in the unemployment line while responsible banks took over their former employers business.
- On 12 May 2013
in
Exit! Stage Left,
bob2356 said:
Over 50%, including pretty much all my cash. I only have rental properties in the US. As you well know people will always need a place to live. An income stream in US dollars is a decent hedge. If the dollar goes totally in the toilet I'll use the income to buy boats and cars to ship out of the country.
- On 12 May 2013
in
Exit! Stage Left,
bob2356 said:
No one who intends on living in the United States would place the majority of his money overseas, especially with the recent IRS jihad against foreign accounts.
Actually quite a few people would do just that, including me. The IRS is only a problem if you are using your overseas accounts to evade taxes. The US government, like most governments around the world, hates having one dime of it's citizens money out of it's direct control. The US government has mounted a very successful and deliberate pr job to convince the average person that overseas accounts means tax evasion and any laws to try to restrict overseas accounts are just for cracking down on tax evasion.
Not having a good portion of your capital hedged out of the reach of your government of residence is a risk. A crisis that requires some type "emergency action" (like grabbing your money) can come up fast, faster than most people react. If you really believe your elected representative in government (aka your self serving political whore sucking corporate dick) won't do anything to keep themselves in power and protect their corporate masters in a crisis then I have a bunch of swamp land in Florida to sell you. Since the US government and financial system is on such secure and responsible financial footing (heavy sarcasm) I'm sure there is no worry about any future crisis. Personally I think 2007 was just a warm up act, but governments can kick the can down the road a really long time so who knows, the next blow up might not be in my lifetime. I'm not counting on that.
- On 11 May 2013
in
Exit! Stage Left,
bob2356 said:
That includes properties. If you own three houses in CA worth 800k each, barring the first 600k or so, you have to pay an exit tax on the others as though you had sold it on the same day-even if you continue to own it and pay taxes on it.
So write your congressman, I've written mine enough saying the law sucks. My point, which you totally fail to grasp, was that you don't pay taxes on your assets as roberto states, you pay taxes on the capital gains of your assets. You would have to pay them sooner or later anyway. WTF does the price have to do with capital gains? If you owned a 800k house that you bought for 900k then you would owe nothing while someone that bought a 50k house now worth 125k would. For someone who has "set themselves up with all the tax ramifications" you seem awful fuzzy on the laws involved.
I have no idea what continuing to pay property taxes has to do with capital gains. Is there a point in here somewhere?
That and some states still require you to pay taxes and that is separate from the federal taxes and treaties. Also what you pay is dependent on the multiple tax treaties US has with multiple countries
Pure bullshit. Tax treaties are to eliminate double taxation. What does this have to do with expatriation? Once you turn in your passport you don't pay US taxes any more, federal or state. That's the whole point.
- On 11 May 2013
in
Exit! Stage Left,
bob2356 said:
the us will tax ALL of your assets on exit...
AND if you work abroad, they tax that too.
not as easy as implied...
Totally false. You will be taxed on capital gains of your assets. If you work abroad you pay local taxes and if your US taxes are higher you pay the difference. But you get a 93k deduction on your gross first. I haven't owed taxes in the US while overseas since my local tax credit plus earned credit is higher than my US taxes. Try to at least know a little about what you are posting.
- On 5 May 2013
in
Crony capitalism = both a corruption of capitalism and a corruption of morals,
bob2356 said:
Just look at the results that is all anyone needs to know.
The results of what? No one has implemented Keynes theories. They only implemented the part where government spends. Perhaps you should actually read and understand Keynes before you comment.
One hundred years after its creation, consumer prices are about 30 times higher than what they were in 1913.
And the wages are how much higher?
- On 3 May 2013
in
Austerity discredited,
bob2356 said:
Social conservatism has also been shown to have an inverse relationship to the number of teeth a person has.
Hence the all important teeth to tattoo ratio.
- On 3 May 2013
in
jobless claims come in at new low,
bob2356 said:
this is not actually uncommon in the early stages of recovery. Companies start by highering cheaper part time employees
That would be great if it were true. The numbers I see say that companies are trading full time jobs for multiple part time jobs to avoid Obamacare mandates. It's nice you are so desperate for good news, but I don't see anything to cheer about. Labour force participation is back to where it was in the mid 70's when large numbers of women were entering the labour force that would have not worked in the economy of the 50's or 60's.
- On 3 May 2013
in
Study: Tech Worker Shortage a Myth,
bob2356 said:
In 2012 there were also 1,020,000 Chinese with a net worth of at least $1.6 million and 63,500 worth at least $16 million a small fraction of which looking for SF bay real estate would impact the market.
That's a whole lot of nothing. Where did this come from and what is "net" worth? If "net" worth includes real estate already then they aren't looking to buy anyway. Even if 20% (doubtful) lived in CA then that would be 200k. If 20% of those were in SF (very very doubtful) then that would be 40k. If 25% were looking for houses (even more doubtful, they have to live someplace now) that would be 10k. So 10k potential buyers in an area of 8 million people would impact the market? I don't think so.
I know it's very hard to believe but SF isn't the center of the universe.
- On 3 May 2013
in
Another reason 401K plans are a poor investment,
bob2356 said:
A. The coming crash of the stock and bond market (still years away, but not that many years).
B. Huge losses in 401k's -> gov't helps people by converting whatever is left there to inflation adjusted bonds (using phony gov't CPI) .
C. More crises -> wealth tax, part of your 401k is taken away.Could happen but a more likely scenario is when the situation has gotten to the point where investors are shunning US government debt (of which a pretty scary amount needs to be rolled over frequently) there will be a requirement that IRA's "invest" an ever increasing percentage of their portfolio in government debt. Been done all over the world already. Been discussed in congress already. There's just way too much money sitting in IRA's for vote buying politico's desperate to keep their jobs to keep their hands off of forever.
- On 1 May 2013
in
U.S. Homeownership Rate Lowest Since 1995,
bob2356 said:
Social security is not causing the deficit.
Don't confuse people with facts.
- On 20 Apr 2013
in
Most supermarket meat contains antibiotic resistant bacteria,
bob2356 said:
With he odds at nearly one in 300k-300M I am less worried about illness from prions than I am about "The Big One" here in the SFBA
Please don't confuse poor curious george with things like that. He lives for giant conspiracies even if the relevance is close to zero. He managed to get Obamacare, agriculture, and the funeral business conspiracy all into one sentence. That's talent.
Notice when you pointed out that cooking and hygiene makes his original point moot he switched to the almost non existent threat of getting BSE from beef to salvage his argument. Nice head fake.
- On 20 Apr 2013
in
Tsarnaev Brothers' Mother Suggests Son Was Contacted By FBI - Business Insider,
bob2356 said:
How many do they interview after being warned by a foreign government? And then do nothing?
According to the news I've read the FBI says they investigate people after being warned by a foreign government pretty regularly. They frequently find nothing and close it out. That's hardly incompetence except in the tin foil hat world.
- On 15 Apr 2013
in
Rand Paul lies about his opposition to civil rights act,
bob2356 said:
Taking two independent things and trying to make a corelation from them is anecdotal at best, not conclusive. But that supports your own predetermined theory.
You need to look again at the definition of anecdotal. Correlation of two well established facts has nothing to do with anecdotal.
So tell me what happened in the 60's other than the great society that happened to facilitate skyrocketing single mother families? Why did teen birth rates drop after welfare reform in 1996? My predetermined theory is wrong let's hear yours.
- On 15 Apr 2013
in
Rand Paul lies about his opposition to civil rights act,
bob2356 said:
It appears as though your contention was that The Great Society made lives worse for American blacks. Was it not?
If that is your contention, can you support that with facts? Or is it something you wish to believe?
My counterpoint was that, prior to the acts passed under Johnson, lives were considerably worse for blacks.
Blacks had less than 10% illegitimacy rate in 1960, it's 70% now. Is 70% of children with single mothers better? The great society was well intended but had dire consequences of enabling and encouraging multi generational single parent welfare dependency for both blacks and whites.
- On 14 Apr 2013
in
Are physician salaries way too high?,
bob2356 said:
The proven incidence in the USA of expired, fake, and/or improperly stored drugs, and pharmacists misreading the illegible handwriting on the Rx, and pharmacists decanting the wrong pill into the bottle with no way for the customer to check the original label, add up to much worse than alleged placebos in Mexico.
Your proof of this is what exactly? You are saying Mexico doesn't have " expired, fake, and/or improperly stored drugs, and pharmacists misreading the illegible handwriting on the Rx, and pharmacists decanting the wrong pill into the bottle with no way for the customer to check the original label," in addition to lots of outright fraud and corruption with non existent oversight. I lived 10 minutes from Matamoros and spent a lot of time in Mexico. I like Mexico, but it's very third world dysfunctional. You are about 1000 times more likely to be ripped off in Mexico than the US with anything you buy. I can't imagine why you view it was a shining example of the way things should be.
Oh Bob, back to your opiate-addled memory again, I don't know whose biography you have me mixed up with now but it ain't me, Bob. There is no inconsistency between saying (a) people have an inalienable right to liberty and (b) they shouldn't be required to pay drug salesmen with MDs to mislead them. But, since you get a cut of the $ from the Rx mandate, perhaps you can't see that.
As usual you just resort to being insulting when you can't answer a question. My 9 year old does the same thing. I believe he will grow out of it as he matures. For you I hold no such hope.
So what's the missing answer to the question? Are people clueless rubes or sophisticated users? They can't be both, despite your arguing both sides. I could go through your postings and point out where you have ranted and raved about people not being smart enough to get generics or using totally useless drugs after being duped time by the pharma industry. Seems like in your mind Homeboy is just such an example as you pointed out right above. So these people that are so clueless should have an inalienable liberty to buy and use whatever drugs they fancy? That should work out pretty well.
An inalienable right to liberty? Is this a joke? I've never suspected you of having a sense of humour. My personal experience is that people who scream the loudest about freedom and liberty are the first to expect someone else to pay when it doesn't work out. They aren't aware of and/or choose to ignore the word responsibility which is the other side of liberty. I would have no problem with people having an inalienable right to buy whatever drug they wanted if they took total responsibility when they fucked up. Let me know when this state of utopia will happen.
My memory may be opiate addled after taking oxycontin for 2 days 10 years ago when I had my shattered hand surgically put back together (no on else on the planet but you would come to that conclusion, congratulations you are an N of 1), but you are the one that somehow managed to forget you took the MCATs. If I was a young man like you with that big a memory problem I would be very concerned. I can give you the names of some doctors I know in Matamoros if you would like.
- On 13 Apr 2013
in
Man tries to take photo of beaver; it kills him,
bob2356 said:
At least he didn't have to get the rabies shots.