BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities
with various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on
the verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000
this morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S.
financial institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and
I have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max. Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in
any U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be
sold quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets
that take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly
in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

You can't have an account insured up to the FDIC max. You account is
insured up to $100,000 or the accounts balance whichever is lower. If
you have more thank $100,000 in any one back you are not too smart.

You have stated previously that you don't own assets that are traded on
stock markets or commodities markets. How can your assets be liquid?

The fact that you have your money on deposit in FDIC covered accounts
means that you have money in US financial institutions. And, if you hold
bonds than you have money invested in a US financial institution, the US
treasury.

Nice try.


D'oh. Read for content, dipschitt.

Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

HK wrote:

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign financial
institution. Unless your definition of a financial institution is
different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.


He hides his money in a mattress.

Harry's playing word games. What's a "significant" liquid asset?
To some it might be 20k. To others, 100k. To others it could be millions.

Eisboch




To say nothing of the definition of "liquid asset."

HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.



Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!

Larry wrote:
HK wrote in news:6eb7mqF695h1U1
@mid.individual.net:

Pretty funny talk...since if you served in Vietnam, nothing you did
there was in anyway related to "saving" my butt.



Hey! We made the bankers and contractors filthy rich at your expense!

....same as Iraq and Afghanistan....



When the government your nation is supporting in South Vietnam has
Buddhist monks protesting against it by setting themselves on fire, then
you really need to ask your government what the hell it is doing there.

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.



Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.


Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch




Larry is a little over the top here, but I have no doubts that the
defense contractors have played a big role in our decisions to go to war
since the end of hostilities in Korea. Defense contractors have cashed
in big time in our latest lunacy in Iraq.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote in news:6ebsu7F6cmllU1
@mid.individual.net:

I really had hoped we had learned a lesson from our debacle there, but
apparently George W. Bush did not.


Harry, once again, you're blaming the EMPLOYEES for the government's
action! George is just an EMPLOYEE of the bankers and freemasons who
run
the country. He was told to go to war so the BANKERS and CONTRACTORS
could
bet filthy rich, just like Kennedy and Johnson EMPLOYEES were in
Vietnam.

There's no difference in the lies and deceit running the country
now...and
the SAME Council on Foreign Relations that was running the country when
Dicky Cheney was its chairman! They are ALL working for the same
ROCKEFELLERS!


Tin hat time.

Eisboch


Larry is a little over the top here, but I have no doubts that the defense
contractors have played a big role in our decisions to go to war since the
end of hostilities in Korea. Defense contractors have cashed in big time
in our latest lunacy in Iraq.

You have no doubts, what's your proof?

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:56:15 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:54:29 -0400, HK
wrote:

Larry wrote:
JR North wrote in
:

What's this got to do with boating?
JR


Boats take vast sums of money to buy, or just sit there rotting
away at the $600/month marina slip. In order to HAVE boats,
some boaters have invested vast sums of money in securities with
various, previously-stable, banking institutions now on the
verge of collapse.

The solvency of the bank the "Boat Fund" is stored in is VERY
on-topic to a discussion about boat....unless you're Donald
Trump and sold your little house in Florida for $95,000,000 this
morning to one of the Russian billionaires. Don wanted
$120,000,000 but had to take less to dump it.

By the way, the REAL ESTATE TAXES on Don's old house was quoted
on the radio at $16,830,000 PER YEAR....as of 2006. A "small
tax increase" could put the Russian's property taxes above the
GDP of several small African countries!

I think he screwed up....
We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions.
Harry, you are so full crap sometimes.

Honest to pete - do you even realise how stupid that statement is?

Or improbable?
Really? Please explain the "stupidity" or "improbability."
Be as specific as you can.

Thanks.

I can be as specific as you want, but if you have ANY major liquid
assets in a non-US based bank, you automatically fall under
anti-terrorism quidelines for the movement of said funds and/or
interest in said funds that you claim every year on your tax return.

Assuming you file one that is.

I'd be very curious as to what "non-US" bank you think is financially
sound where you don't get killed in exchange rates in moving "liguid"
assets around to make more money.

Which is the whole point of having liquid assets - to make more liguid
assets.

And I'm already tired of this discussion.

Sometimes Harry, words just can't define how stupid you sound.




You're a bit quick jumping to conclusions about facts you don't have.

Your assumption is that because we don't put most of our liquid eggs
in U.S. financial institutions, we must be putting them in foreign
financial institutions. That assumption is...wrong.

If it isn't a US financial institution it has to be a foreign
financial institution. Unless your definition of a financial
institution is different than 99.99999999% of the rest of the world.



One of the joys of this newsgroup is that so many of the "rightie"
posters here are so damned binary, and get so tied up by it.

This is the sentence under consideration:

"We don't keep any significant liquid assets in any U.S. financial
institutions."


All that sentence says is...what it says. It doesn't say an iota more
than what it says, yet several righties here have jumped to all manner
of conclusions based upon information not in play.

Typical for righties.

My wife and I have individual insured accounts up to the FDIC max, and I
have several PODs insured up to the FDIC max.

Harry,
If you really had any idea what you were talking about, you would
realize there are tens of thousands of different institutions you could
put $100,000 in, and ALL of them would be insured 100%. Your knowledge
of investments is about as accurate as your knowlege of macro economics.
Didn't you Daddy give you a hug when you were a kid? Is that why you
search so desperately for attention on the Internet?



Other than those
relatively minor sums and cash for ongoing household expenses,
everything else we have that might be considered "liquid" is NOT in any
U.S. financial institution. We both have liquid assets that can be sold
quickly and at appreciated values, and some "semi-liquid" assets that
take a bit longer to dispose of but also have increased greatly in value.

Thus, so long as the U.S. government doesn't collapse (and that is a
possibility), our cash in insured institutions is safe, and our other
liquid assets are accessible.

"John H." wrote

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.

And you think that extending this thread, quoting his drivel doesn't ?

I think you guys should change the name of the Group to FISHING because no
one here can apparently resist going for the BAIT.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:29:10 GMT, "Rudy" wrote:


"John H." wrote

Harry's point is to do what he can, with the aid of his two buddies, to
make this group untenable. 'Discourse' with him simply encourages him.

And you think that extending this thread, quoting his drivel doesn't ?

I think you guys should change the name of the Group to FISHING because no
one here can apparently resist going for the BAIT.


Obviously you're correct. This is the only place he's posting.