Sorry. I completely misunderstood.

That was the point another (forgotten who, when, or where) made. A post is not the author. Whereas a post reflects conclusions (actions) made by an author, challenging the post should not be considered an attack on the first author and should not result in a second (challenging) author being attacked. The post is a thought - a concept - that lives like a balloon. Some want to tap that balloon back up. Others want to puncture it. But the bottom line remains. A post that has no credibility is not an attack on the author. An author who takes his posts personally tends to then attack other authors.

Example - stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. That is a fact. That says nothing about lookout123. Somehow and repeatedly, lookout123 takes it personally. I don't know why. lookout123 may be the minority that matches or outperforms the market. That also would be consistent with the statement. Whether he does or does not is irrelevant to the post - that stock brokers, on average, underperform the market.

Clearly that statement - stockbrokers on average underperform - says nothing about nor disparaged lookout123. However, for reasons that totally befuddle me, lookout123 does take it personally.

I don't take it personally. I know that you are a worthless liar. If I took it personally I'd probably run on and on about my personal performance. I simply asked you support your idea - you refuse to do so. Wait, is it still a refusal, if the reason you don't respond is that... YOU CAN'T, because you are liar? Eh, either way. I gave you multiple opportunities to support your claims. You chose to ignore the opportunities to do so. I responded to your claims in detail. You chose to ignore that. You simply waited until you thought people had forgotten to restate your original misrepresentation. I called you a liar. You choose not to refute that. You are a fucking worthless liar. Prove me wrong.

Supporting facts were provided including facts and numbers from a recent The Economist study on this topic. I fail to see where you refuted any of those facts and numbers. Meanwhile, taking investment recommendations from four years ago, UT's mutual fund recommendation outperformed your recommendations. Just another fact.

Demonstated by lookout123 again is the difference between dealing with concepts verses taking things personally - attacking another author. Well last night, maybe he was drinking. Today, a hangover? Jack makes some meanly good stuff.

If that were true I would congratulate UT on choosing better than I did, but see the problem is that I didn't make ANY recommendations at all in the thread you talking about. I didn't even name a specific investment.

You are a liar. You still haven't stepped up to the plate and answered a single question you've been asked. You haven't even bothered to support any of your incorrect ideas.

I find it bizarrely ironic that you have such a heartfelt hatred of GWB when you are so similar. Neither one of you is willing to step up and admit that you might have been wrong. You each made judgements based on the information you had, you were both wrong and have been shown to be wrong by reasonable people, and yet you cannot admit you made a mistake so you just make bigger asses of yourselves. GWB's mental midget status is well known, so what does that say about yours?

BTW that fund has lost 25% of its value in the last two months. I'm happy to be out of it, for whatever reason.

I find it amusing that some here are complaining about 6% interest rates.

In Australia, interest rates are higher. The standard variable rates offered by the major Australian banks is about 9.3% right now.

But, but, you have free health care, and, and, you drive on the other side of the road... and.... Ali has a nice new house near the coast...:blush:

Since there was some interesting banter in the last couple pages, Ifigured I'd put this here instead of creating a new thread.

Ahhh, the transparency of it all. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sooooo many times I have heard of government decisions along the lines of "Don't do it, it would cause a panic". Inevitably, it either leaks out or they are forced to act later, which guarantees a much worse panic when they do.

The governor refused to fortify Singapore as the Japanese pushed South through Malaya to avoid causing a panic.
The Brit government didn't publicise the threat to industrial cities in the north, to prevent panic, until the Luftwaffe superseded them.
There are plenty of other examples but I won't mention them. I wouldn't want to scare anyone.

Stress test results anyone?

PR campaign anyone?

Can you say Monopoly Money?

skank of America and shittybank did not pass the test, but the government wants them to raise capital privately instead of giving it to them.

On another note, the banks spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress to NOT pass the bill that would have allowed a bankruptcy judge to order refinancing of someone's home who was in foreclosure. Before any of you have a cow, rich people can save any number of extra homes they have, or yacths, farms can be saved, and many other things. Only if you are so unlucky as to own only one home, which you happen to live in, you do not get that same courtesy. And the bill was just recently voted on again. And it didn't pass. Surprise surprise. Why is it we will protect someone's vacation home or thier yacth, but not someone's primary residence?

Get the story here... In a recent radio address on Radio Chicagoland Senator Richard (Dick) Durbin remarked on power the financial services industry still wields at a time when that industry is theoretically under great scrutiny: "The banks — hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

The banking lobby won a significant victory in Congress on May 1, 2009 when 12 Democrats joined a united Republican Caucus to vote down an amendment to President Obama's housing bill. At issue was a measure that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The House version of the bill, which provides wide housing assistance and consumer protection measures, passed with the amendment, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said she does not expect the measure to be included in the final bill since the Senate voted it down.... (there's more) http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05082009/profile.html

This fucking blows. We need another Pecora Hearing, like they had in the 30s during the Great Depression. It will be the only way we can win against the powerful banks. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04...anscript1.html

About the stress tests... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/hea...ress.html#more

damn those banks for not wanting legislation allowing people who can't afford their homes to keep them. the devils!

:bites tongue:

When banks were responsible - did not have a mafioso persona - banks lend only to those who could afford it. Now that they have so many customers that should never be approved, well, it is the customer's fault?

Banks once determined when someone could afford it. Now that the purpose of any company is profits, screw the applicant. Only profits are important.

But again, any company whose purpose is profits therefore deserves to have no profits - and severe punishment.

How curious. Those using extremist politics also advocate a mafia objecctive of profits only - screw the employee, customer, economy, and product. This is Rush Limbaugh’s philosophy that even called Colin Powell a flaming liberal.

Banks that did their job have customers who could afford their homes. Oh. That means the product is more important than profits? A concept so difficult for loyal Limbaugh extremists to admit. Screw the customer. If he cannot afford the house, we will put him there anyway to maximize profits. Extremists say that is good. And now blame the customers for not doing what every bank once had to do when banks had to be responsible.

Clearly that flaming liberal Colin Powell is to blame.

You know a lot of the people who have lost their home or are in danger of losing their home did nothing wrong. They bought the right house, they could afford it, it wasn't a problem, but after the economy tanked, and people started losing jobs, or getting pay cuts, they couldn't afford to keep them. Some people probably tried to sell their house, but couldn't, because the market is so bad.

AND, let's not forget, those banks are complicit in giving people mortgages they knew they couldn't afford. They were the ones in the position of power. They are the more responsible individuals here for putting someone into a house they clearly could not afford. And that doesn't even go into all the other shady trickses financial institutions were doing.

I'm sick of people blaming only the people who bought more house than they could afford, because those people are not the ones who caused the crash. The people in power are the ones who caused it. Any ethical bank is not going to sign off on a mortgage that someone cannot afford. And the banks who did just turned around and sold it to someone else so they wouldn't be responsible for it. It was wrong, what all those financial people did.

Moyers is a great commentator but he is Left of Huffington.

IMO Advanta made a huge mistake when they quietly raised everyone's interest rates to 36% last year. My credit is spotless, so immediately I just transferred my remaining balance to another company, and I suspect that's exactly what everyone else with decent credit did... leaving Advanta with only the customers who didn't have good enough credit to leave. Do the math.

The insane thing is that I had Advanta as my business card for YEARS, with a balance sometimes as high as $12k, never was late on a payment once, and when they jacked my interest my balance was only around $1400. It was a stupid thing to do to customers with good credit.

I have been keeping an eye on my interest rates. So far the only change I have seen is a notice that they are going to increase the fees for overseas transactions, which sucks because we just booked a trip to Freeport.

The school where I work it being closed. It isn't the only state agency being hit hard. Oregon's unemployment is second in the nation.

I have no idea why I am not freaking out.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._oregon_s.html

http://www.pww.org/article/view/15643

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/cus...30811835.story


It passed ways and means yesterday. It goes to the house for a vote then to the senate.

The property although old is huge and beautiful. It borders Bush park and the hospital. By closing the school the state gets a double whammy in revenue.

2 year bump on this baby.

I was at a meeting yesterday. 85% of the people there were unemployed.

'Course, this is (was) a GM town. Then NCR left.

We're twisting in the wind here. We are Flint, MI South.

The place where I work is surrounded by a chain link fence. wow did that not feel good but short term job training is good although I occasionally have fleeting worries about the future. I don't entertain them because it's a waste of energy. A job will happen because it must is the only thing I put faith in.

The other thing is just to keep putting one foot in front of the other and enjoy the good things as they come until I get to where I want to be.