On 19/07/2010 9:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:21:25 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:24:45 -0600,
wrote:


uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?


You are obviously suffering financially yet you still think the Dems are
on your side?


yeah.

when's the last time the GOP proposed a capital gains tax INCREASE?

oh. never.

QED

Capital gains is really a wealth tax.

Say you owned an average company, stable but average in every way.
Worht $1 a share. Pays a constant 4% dividend. Some decades later it
is worth $4 but every you could by for a $1 is now $4, in dollars you
have 4 tiems as much but in buying power you are the same. Thus no real
gain other than the dividend you get.

But wait, government taxes capital gains so when you sell it for $4 and
realize the $3 gain you pay taxes of say $0.70 for a $3.30 left. But it
can't buy the $4 item...so purchasing pwoer is lost.

It is why you seek gains above inflation or it isn't worth owning unless
the divident is fat.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:21:25 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:24:45 -0600,
wrote:




uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?



You are obviously suffering financially yet you still think the Dems are
on your side?


yeah.

when's the last time the GOP proposed a capital gains tax INCREASE?

oh. never.

QED

Why do you have to worry about that? Are you at retirement age?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?

A good percentage of it never existed in the first place. It was just
paper that was traded like it had some kind of value (Derivatives and
such).
A good chunk has been made back The dow is over 10 again.
If we could actually create some real jobs it would do better.

The money that was made 2 years ago was made shorting the market.
Since then there are quite a few stocks that have appreciated and if
you trade stocks there was a quick $50 to be made on a share of Google
in the last few weeks. I watched it but I didn't trade on it.

Ah, stock trading, the pass time of the wicked.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:18:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?

A good percentage of it never existed in the first place. It was just
paper that was traded like it had some kind of value (Derivatives and
such).

absolutely agree...courtesy of the right wing groupthink that said
'turn the economy over to the free market and stop giving increases to
the middle class'.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:18:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?

A good percentage of it never existed in the first place. It was just
paper that was traded like it had some kind of value (Derivatives and
such).

absolutely agree...courtesy of the right wing groupthink that said
'turn the economy over to the free market and stop giving increases to
the middle class'.



I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments in the
stock market that I started in 1999.
Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

CC

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments in the
stock market that I started in 1999.

and the difference is? 'paper' losses are real losses representing a
loss in equity and a loss in the ability to extend further investments

Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:37:59 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Hell, it's only down 10% for the year! A wonderful success story.
just think, if GWB had his way, social security could have the same
success my 401K is having.

Your 401k is not 10 trillion in debt

it's certainly part of it. 14 trillion dollars in equity wiped out by
right wing greed


BTW if your fund manager has any brains at all he bought this market

blah blah blah. find me a 401K that's doing well, OK? which is it?
fidelity? shearson? magellan?

IOW you're just spouting bull****.


My meager little portfolio is making about 30% since 1q09,


fine. when you become 100M middle class americans, you be sure and let
me know, OK?

again...the question:

which 401K funds manager...magellan, shearson, chase, etc...is doing
better today than in 2006?

go ahead. take your time

On 18/07/2010 12:16 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:37:59 -0400, wrote:

Hell, it's only down 10% for the year! A wonderful success story.
just think, if GWB had his way, social security could have the same
success my 401K is having.

Your 401k is not 10 trillion in debt

it's certainly part of it. 14 trillion dollars in equity wiped out by
right wing greed


BTW if your fund manager has any brains at all he bought this market

blah blah blah. find me a 401K that's doing well, OK? which is it?
fidelity? shearson? magellan?

IOW you're just spouting bull****.


My meager little portfolio is making about 30% since 1q09,


fine. when you become 100M middle class americans, you be sure and let
me know, OK?

again...the question:

which 401K funds manager...magellan, shearson, chase, etc...is doing
better today than in 2006?

go ahead. take your time

I guess you don't have the right mondset.

Money is attracted to those who know how to manage it.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 18/07/2010 12:16 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:49:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:37:59 -0400, wrote:

Hell, it's only down 10% for the year! A wonderful success story.
just think, if GWB had his way, social security could have the same
success my 401K is having.

Your 401k is not 10 trillion in debt

it's certainly part of it. 14 trillion dollars in equity wiped out by
right wing greed


BTW if your fund manager has any brains at all he bought this market

blah blah blah. find me a 401K that's doing well, OK? which is it?
fidelity? shearson? magellan?

IOW you're just spouting bull****.


My meager little portfolio is making about 30% since 1q09,


fine. when you become 100M middle class americans, you be sure and let
me know, OK?

again...the question:

which 401K funds manager...magellan, shearson, chase, etc...is doing
better today than in 2006?

go ahead. take your time

I guess you don't have the right mondset.

Money is attracted to those who know how to manage it.

I knew you felt betrayed by the system. Now I know why.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:51:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/07/2010 12:16 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:49:21 -0400, wrote:



fine. when you become 100M middle class americans, you be sure and let
me know, OK?

again...the question:

which 401K funds manager...magellan, shearson, chase, etc...is doing
better today than in 2006?

go ahead. take your time

I guess you don't have the right mondset.

Money is attracted to those who know how to manage it.

if that's true

why has the US economy collapsed. you mean to tell me there's NO ONE
in the US who knows how to mamage money??

you sure are stupid