Winners and Losers from a Fiscal-Cliff Deal

I Love America said:
So is junk silver. I am not talking about an investment vehicle when I speak of junk silver. I am talking about having hard currency that is easily recognizable that one can barter with when the poo hits the fan. The gobblement has shown a willingness to confiscate gold in the past, they will do it again.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you buy silver, junk or otherwise, that is other than a US Minted coin it is, because of 6045b, subject to the same requirements as any other investment vehicle.
 
I Love America said:
That is not what they meant and you know it. If it were, why didn't they set up universal healthcare from the get go? Why didn't they set up a Dept of Health? You are twisting the words and yourself in knots trying to comport them to your worldview. You do not have a right to medical care.
Click to expand...

And just what medical care was available circa 1776? In most cases a person had a better chance of survival not visiting a doctor. They knew nothing about germs/bacteria.

But, forget the philosophical for a second. Why in the world would you turn your medical care decisions over to the government? That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Here's precisely the problem with medical care opponents. It has nothing to do with turning ones medical decisions over to government. Government medical care does not operate like private medical care. When one has a private medical insurance policy the doctor has to consult the company to see if a procedure is covered AND whether the insuring company determines it's appropriate for the patient. Neither apply to government medical. First, if a procedure is covered it is covered for everyone. Like a law, if you will. If Bill is allowed to travel at 60 MPH then Tom is allowed to travel at 60 MPH. If the speed limit is 60 MPH then everyone is entitled to drive at 60 MPH. If heart surgery is covered it's covered for everyone and the attending doctor makes the decision along with the patient.

It boggles the mind when you hear people complain about all the things government does and then the same people turn around and ask the government to do more.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what the government is doing. One may want the cleaning lady to clean the kitchen and living room and it would be great if she cleaned the back porch, as well, but they don't want the cleaning lady to rearrange the living room furniture.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
apple doesnt care about what the founders intended, only what the words of the founders can be twisted to mean, which generally means an overall pervasive central government that controls every aspect of a persons life, except their sexual activities. see, apple is a statist who believes that freedom is not inherent, but is a privilege extended only to those who 'go along to get along'. anything else is just anarchy.
Click to expand...

Where is it written in ObamaCare one has to obtain medical care? Do you know of any country with government medical where one is compelled, by law, to seek care?
 
I Love America said:
Because the elites are happy just the way things are. Why should they change? There is no impetus for them to change. The overwhelming majority of incumbents win. The populace runs around playing my side is better than your side. They both suck monkey balls.

The game is over, the only thing that matters is when the referee calls the fight. We are $16 trillion in debt that is on the books with unfunded liabilities as far as the eye can see. We have no hope of ever paying that back.

The Fed has been stealing our wealth since the dot com bust, but nobody seems to notice or care. There is only two things worth owning in the coming years.

1) land free and clear (check)
2) physical silver preferably junk silver as it is easier to barter with (check)
Click to expand...

A mortgage-free home and a pile of old sterling silver (bowls, cutlery, cigarette cases, commemorative ingots, etc)? Sounds good to me. :)
 
Whatever happened to Glenn Beck gold?

I thought that was the right wing's answer to the uncoming finacopolyse?
 
I Love America said:
It is not a living document. The only people who say that are people who don't like what it says. As for the ability to be amended, well NO SHIT SHERLOCK. But you and your ilk don't like going to the trouble of amending it because the Founding Fathers purposefully made it difficult to do.

They didn't want "radical" change in any direction. That was the reason for the checks and balances. It was the reason elections were set up the way they were. You and your ilk don't like that, hence the birth of "the living Constitution".

It either means what it says, or it does not.
Click to expand...

And one has to interpret it in context and the context is the Preamble. What was the purpose of the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The Founding Fathers' intentions and what they hoped it would achieve. What were their intentions? If they knew a time would come when a pill costing less than 50 cents a day would prolong a person's life by 20 or more years by preventing heart attacks and strokes would they have said, "To hell with the people. Let them die"? Is that what you think the Founding Fathers' goal was when they crafted the Constitution?
 
I Love America said:
It is not a living document. The only people who say that are people who don't like what it says. As for the ability to be amended, well NO SHIT SHERLOCK. But you and your ilk don't like going to the trouble of amending it because the Founding Fathers purposefully made it difficult to do.

They didn't want "radical" change in any direction. That was the reason for the checks and balances. It was the reason elections were set up the way they were. You and your ilk don't like that, hence the birth of "the living Constitution".

It either means what it says, or it does not.
Click to expand...

The fact that amendments are allowed proves that the Constitution is a living document.

You can't argue that.


"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

Y'all keep harping on the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, but refuse to give them credit for being brilliant enough to realize that the conditions that founded the country might not go on for ever.
 
apple0154 said:
A mortgage-free home and a pile of old sterling silver (bowls, cutlery, cigarette cases, commemorative ingots, etc)? Sounds good to me. :)
Click to expand...

A mortgage free home is a great thing. I always laugh at people who scoff at my mortgage being paid off saying "what about the deduction". I then proceed to ask them to give me a $1 and in return I will give them $0.25. They always say no. And then I explain to them that it is precisely what they are doing with their mortgage. Unfortunately being unsophisticated financially, they have drunk from the Kool Aid and have this belief that they are screwing the gobblement, and they don't even realize they are taking it in the ass.

But, if you are any where near urban/suburban areas you may want to think a place to "bug out". Mountains, place to hide out when the animals start eating each other. You don't want to be in the middle of that. The elites will use the police to protect the elites. Not you

As for sterling silver, they are definitely of value, but when the shit hits the fan, how do you propose you are going to trade that in for goods? You can't melt it down. How would someone determine its value? Junk silver is the way to go.
 
Howey said:
The fact that amendments are allowed proves that the Constitution is a living document.

You can't argue that.


"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

Y'all keep harping on the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, but refuse to give them credit for being brilliant enough to realize that the conditions that founded the country might not go on for ever.
Click to expand...

Apparently you just like to argue and can't take yes for an answer. Maybe we need to determine what each of us means by a living document. If you mean that the US Constitution couldn't foresee the future and that any changes to said law that wasn't covered could be handled through the Amendment process and ONLY through the Amendment process, then I would accept that strict definition as a "living document". Only in those confines.

What I mean by a "living document" are people sitting around altering its meaning WITHOUT the Amendment process but using the term "living document" to justify their ends. If that is what you mean, then no it is not a living document. For example, when the right to privacy was found in the US Constitution by the Supreme Court to back up Roe v Wade it was done so under the auspices of a living document. Before that time, no right to privacy was ever guarenteed under the US Constitution. But, it was "molded" to fit the fashionable position of the day without the Amendment process. That is my biggest reason for opposing Roe v Wade. It was bad Constitutional law. If you think there should be a right to privacy in the US Constitution, then fine. Amend it to say so. So claim the words are there when they are not. That is how many on the left use "living document"

So which side are you on? A or B?
 
apple0154 said:
And one has to interpret it in context and the context is the Preamble. What was the purpose of the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The Founding Fathers' intentions and what they hoped it would achieve. What were their intentions? If they knew a time would come when a pill costing less than 50 cents a day would prolong a person's life by 20 or more years by preventing heart attacks and strokes would they have said, "To hell with the people. Let them die"? Is that what you think the Founding Fathers' goal was when they crafted the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You are offering false choices. You apparently think that the choice is either the gobblement provides the pill or the person dies. That is fallacious reasoning.
 
I Love America said:
A mortgage free home is a great thing. I always laugh at people who scoff at my mortgage being paid off saying "what about the deduction". I then proceed to ask them to give me a $1 and in return I will give them $0.25. They always say no. And then I explain to them that it is precisely what they are doing with their mortgage. Unfortunately being unsophisticated financially, they have drunk from the Kool Aid and have this belief that they are screwing the gobblement, and they don't even realize they are taking it in the ass.

But, if you are any where near urban/suburban areas you may want to think a place to "bug out". Mountains, place to hide out when the animals start eating each other. You don't want to be in the middle of that. The elites will use the police to protect the elites. Not you

As for sterling silver, they are definitely of value, but when the shit hits the fan, how do you propose you are going to trade that in for goods? You can't melt it down. How would someone determine its value? Junk silver is the way to go.
Click to expand...

If it comes to the point where I have to trade silver for food I'll "bug out" but it won't be to any mountain. ;)
 
I Love America said:
You are offering false choices. You apparently think that the choice is either the gobblement provides the pill or the person dies. That is fallacious reasoning.
Click to expand...

It's not fallacious, at all. 45,000 people die every year from a lack of medical coverage. Surely you've read about people having to choose between food and medication. How many lives are shortened because of that?
 
I Love America said:
A mortgage free home is a great thing. I always laugh at people who scoff at my mortgage being paid off saying "what about the deduction". I then proceed to ask them to give me a $1 and in return I will give them $0.25. They always say no. And then I explain to them that it is precisely what they are doing with their mortgage. Unfortunately being unsophisticated financially, they have drunk from the Kool Aid and have this belief that they are screwing the gobblement, and they don't even realize they are taking it in the ass.

But, if you are any where near urban/suburban areas you may want to think a place to "bug out". Mountains, place to hide out when the animals start eating each other. You don't want to be in the middle of that. The elites will use the police to protect the elites. Not you

As for sterling silver, they are definitely of value, but when the shit hits the fan, how do you propose you are going to trade that in for goods? You can't melt it down. How would someone determine its value? Junk silver is the way to go.
Click to expand...

A mortgage free home is only a good thing if you lack the discipline to save and properly invest the money you borrowed on your home. If I owned my home outright, I could then borrow $100,000 at 4.5%. If I turned around and invested that money at 7%, (what the DOW did in 2012) and got a deduction on the interest I was paying on the 4.5% I would come out more than $2,500 ahead at the end of the year.


If I could borrow $500,000 on my home I would come out more than $12,500 ahead.
 
I Love America said:
That is not what they meant and you know it. If it were, why didn't they set up universal healthcare from the get go? Why didn't they set up a Dept of Health? You are twisting the words and yourself in knots trying to comport them to your worldview. You do not have a right to medical care.

But, forget the philosophical for a second. Why in the world would you turn your medical care decisions over to the government? That makes absolutely no sense.

It boggles the mind when you hear people complain about all the things government does and then the same people turn around and ask the government to do more.
Click to expand...

Amen That is a big 10 - 4
 
Jarod said:
A mortgage free home is only a good thing if you lack the discipline to save and properly invest the money you borrowed on your home. If I owned my home outright, I could then borrow $100,000 at 4.5%. If I turned around and invested that money at 7%, (what the DOW did in 2012) and got a deduction on the interest I was paying on the 4.5% I would come out more than $2,500 ahead at the end of the year.

If I could borrow $500,000 on my home I would come out more than $12,500 ahead.
Click to expand...

Many people subscribe to that line of thinking... while it can certainly work as you describe, it can also blow up in your face... especially if you are investing in the equity markets.

What if you had done that in 2007? Then watched not only your home value drop, but also your investment.

Not saying your strategy cannot work, but it is far more risky. In a great economy, no so much. In a shitty economy, it becomes ever more risky.

Everyone has different levels of risk tolerance to be sure, to say it is only good if you lack discipline is however quite false. Some people simply do not want to take the investment risk. The vast majority of my high net worth clients have zero debt.

All that said, I would love to hear how you 'properly invest'...
 
Superfreak said:
Many people subscribe to that line of thinking... while it can certainly work as you describe, it can also blow up in your face... especially if you are investing in the equity markets.

What if you had done that in 2007? Then watched not only your home value drop, but also your investment.

Not saying your strategy cannot work, but it is far more risky. In a great economy, no so much. In a shitty economy, it becomes ever more risky.

Everyone has different levels of risk tolerance to be sure, to say it is only good if you lack discipline is however quite false. Some people simply do not want to take the investment risk. The vast majority of my high net worth clients have zero debt.

All that said, I would love to hear how you 'properly invest'...
Click to expand...

I agree it can blow up in your face, and you do have to be carefull about it... but in general, especally if you take a long term approach it works out well. You should never borrow even close to your home's value, and you should make safe investments. But if you had done that in 07' and had enough in reserves to maintain it, you would be ahead by now.
 
Superfreak said:
Many people subscribe to that line of thinking... while it can certainly work as you describe, it can also blow up in your face... especially if you are investing in the equity markets.

What if you had done that in 2007? Then watched not only your home value drop, but also your investment.

Not saying your strategy cannot work, but it is far more risky. In a great economy, no so much. In a shitty economy, it becomes ever more risky.

Everyone has different levels of risk tolerance to be sure, to say it is only good if you lack discipline is however quite false. Some people simply do not want to take the investment risk. The vast majority of my high net worth clients have zero debt.

All that said, I would love to hear how you 'properly invest'...
Click to expand...

Ive dont failry well. I dont invest much... but when I do I generally do okay. I was out of the market in 2007, My GE went way up before I sold, I sold my Gold about 16 months ago at a nice profit. Ive been out lately, simply because I did not have much time to mess with it, but I might get back in soon as I expect we will have a reasonable DOW year. I usually do a modified Dogs of the Dow stragety. I keep a percentage in Municipal bonds incase I ever lose my ability to make an income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top