I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?

On 11/12/2019 7:36 PM, micky wrote:
I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?


Bill a low average each billing period to avoid the complaints about a
huge bill when they finally come through?

On 11/12/2019 10:36 PM, micky wrote:
I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?


When you have that many people, no matter what you do, someone with
bitch about it. I would though, put out a letter explaining it. Let
them know the bill could end up more than usual but it would cover more
months.

I'm glad the city had the balls not to pay. You'd think a big business
would have safeguards in place for a rescue if the computer turned to
**** one day. If no one paid, no one would bother asking.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:36:04 -0500, micky
wrote:

I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?

Water tends to be a fairly steady expense. I think I would bill all of
the owners based on an average of old bills so they don't get slammed
with a huge bill by surprise. I know it boggles the mind but a lot of
people do not understand saving "found" money and they have been
spending that water bill money all along. Some may not be able to come
up with a grand or whatever it might end up being when the City of
Bulletmore gets around to sending you a bill.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:36:04 -0500, micky
wrote:

I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?
Collect as usual and deposit in a "trust account" until you get the
bill. If you never get the back billing apply to future bills.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:59:28 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 11/12/2019 10:36 PM, micky wrote:
I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?


When you have that many people, no matter what you do, someone with
bitch about it. I would though, put out a letter explaining it. Let
them know the bill could end up more than usual but it would cover more
months.

I'll get back to you on this, maybe in a post not specificially to you.

I'm glad the city had the balls not to pay. You'd think a big business
would have safeguards in place for a rescue if the computer turned to
**** one day. If no one paid, no one would bother asking.

I was out of the country when this happened and a few weeks afterwards
so by the time I got back it wasn't much in the news. But, I think I
read it costs much more in extra labor not to pay than to pay. I know
I read that in the first few days they had to use the personal email
accounts of employees to get things done. And no online tax paying, and
even in person, I suppose they couldn't enter it into t he computer.
Just had to write it down and enter it later. Extra labor charges or
things not done. And other such problems.

I don't know if it the decision not to pay was controversial. Well, I'm
sure it was but how much I don't know. I could google but not tonight.

This happened in April or May and I gather we've gotten some little
bills for water. I didn't understand if they said 147 dollars or maybe
1470, but 147 split 100 ways is not much. Esp. if the HOA bill should be
4000 a month.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 11:54:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:36:04 -0500, micky
wrote:

I live in a small townhouse community in suburban Baltimore. We buy our
water from Baltimore.

You may have heard that Baltimore City got ransomware and they decided
not to pay. They've gotten almost all of their services back up (based
on backups I guess but I haven't been following it.

But we have not been getting our water bill. Unlike any other place I
know of, we get one bill for the whole n'hood and split it evenly in
about 100 pieces.

We've been charging $35 for water, but it's nore than that now, people
are sure, but how much, no one knows.


THE PLAN IS for the HOA to not bill the homeowners for water until we
ourselves get a bill. If we get a bill for prior months, to bill them
for that too, when we get it.


Good plan? Why and why not? What might be a better plan?

Water tends to be a fairly steady expense. I think I would bill all of
the owners based on an average of old bills so they don't get slammed
with a huge bill by surprise. I know it boggles the mind but a lot of
people do not understand saving "found" money and they have been
spending that water bill money all along. Some may not be able to come
up with a grand or whatever it might end up being when the City of
Bulletmore gets around to sending you a bill.

+1

Seems obvious to me. More than not understanding, there are people just
living off SS or whatever and they may forget about the non-existent bill,
spend the money and then not have it. More inexplicable was a request we
got one time from some lady who was an owner in the condo complex when
I was president. She wanted her monthly maintenance payment which might
have been $150 at the time to be due on a date different from everyone else,
because she was on a fixed income. The board felt sorry for her,
I couldn't understand it. I can understand and have worked with people
who are having some temporary problems, but to say you can only pay on
a date of your choosing forever? And the issue for the mgt company is
they would now have a different rule, different date for one owner and
have to remember and keep track of that.

On 11/13/2019 7:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Seems obvious to me. More than not understanding, there are people just
living off SS or whatever and they may forget about the non-existent bill,
spend the money and then not have it. More inexplicable was a request we
got one time from some lady who was an owner in the condo complex when
I was president. She wanted her monthly maintenance payment which might
have been $150 at the time to be due on a date different from everyone else,
because she was on a fixed income. The board felt sorry for her,
I couldn't understand it. I can understand and have worked with people
who are having some temporary problems, but to say you can only pay on
a date of your choosing forever? And the issue for the mgt company is
they would now have a different rule, different date for one owner and
have to remember and keep track of that.


The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.

In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

As mentioned most work jobs that the money comes in all the same each
pay period. Some get even less if they miss a day of work.
In my working years every job I had paid by the hour. If you were sick
or just took a day off, you did not get paid for those days.

After being retired I get SS and a pension every month and do not have
to worry about getting sick or having to take a day off without pay.

I will be getting more money next year as I have to take a RMD out of
the IRA . Getting senior discounts at places. Everything paid for, so
have more money now to 'blow' on things that I ever did during the
working years.

God has looked out for my health. Sofar no major issues.
So no big medical bills.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:02:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 11/13/2019 7:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Seems obvious to me. More than not understanding, there are people just
living off SS or whatever and they may forget about the non-existent bill,
spend the money and then not have it. More inexplicable was a request we
got one time from some lady who was an owner in the condo complex when
I was president. She wanted her monthly maintenance payment which might
have been $150 at the time to be due on a date different from everyone else,
because she was on a fixed income. The board felt sorry for her,
I couldn't understand it. I can understand and have worked with people
who are having some temporary problems, but to say you can only pay on
a date of your choosing forever? And the issue for the mgt company is
they would now have a different rule, different date for one owner and
have to remember and keep track of that.


The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too,

Yes, I've thought about that too. My income was always fixed except
when I was a Fuller Brush man.

though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime,

Or work on commission/tips.

I guess they don't want to say they don't have much income. Even that,
what someone doesn't have, is a euphemism. More straightforward is, "I
have little money."

that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.

On 11/13/2019 10:49 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

As mentioned most work jobs that the money comes in all the same each
pay period. Some get even less if they miss a day of work.
In my working years every job I had paid by the hour. If you were sick
or just took a day off, you did not get paid for those days.

After being retired I get SS and a pension every month and do not have
to worry about getting sick or having to take a day off without pay.

I will be getting more money next year as I have to take a RMD out of
the IRA . Getting senior discounts at places. Everything paid for, so
have more money now to 'blow' on things that I ever did during the
working years.

God has looked out for my health. Sofar no major issues.
So no big medical bills.


Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.

For op, it sounds like a good idea to keep paying before the bill water
bill comes in because many people, maybe most, do not know how to budget
or live within their means and cannot take an unexpected bill.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:49:04 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

As mentioned most work jobs that the money comes in all the same each
pay period. Some get even less if they miss a day of work.
In my working years every job I had paid by the hour. If you were sick
or just took a day off, you did not get paid for those days.

Then you didn't have a fixed income. It could go lower!

After being retired I get SS and a pension every month and do not have
to worry about getting sick or having to take a day off without pay.

I will be getting more money next year as I have to take a RMD out of
the IRA . Getting senior discounts at places. Everything paid for, so
have more money now to 'blow' on things that I ever did during the
working years.

God has looked out for my health. Sofar no major issues.
So no big medical bills.

Me too. For a while I thought I was poor. Looked into reverse
mortgages, annuities for myself. But I see that I'm not eating into my
savings fast enough to spend all of it in my lifetime (Unless I get very
sick or want to buy a verrry big home.)

Now I have sort of the other problem. After a lifetime of being
thrifty, I'd like to spend more money, but I don't known how. They
don't make the kind of car I want (a '65 Buick or Cadilllac
convertible.) so I can't spend it on a new car. I don't want to buy a
'65 and worry about damaging it. I could go out to eat more, but I
usually watch tv when I eat. Can't do that at restaurant s. I could
buy more expesive food at the grocery, but I think I have to drive
farther to get to a fancy grocery, and even that will only account for
500 or 1000 dollars a year.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:02:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/13/2019 7:48 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Seems obvious to me. More than not understanding, there are people just
living off SS or whatever and they may forget about the non-existent bill,
spend the money and then not have it. More inexplicable was a request we
got one time from some lady who was an owner in the condo complex when
I was president. She wanted her monthly maintenance payment which might
have been $150 at the time to be due on a date different from everyone else,
because she was on a fixed income. The board felt sorry for her,
I couldn't understand it. I can understand and have worked with people
who are having some temporary problems, but to say you can only pay on
a date of your choosing forever? And the issue for the mgt company is
they would now have a different rule, different date for one owner and
have to remember and keep track of that.


The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.

SS is not a fixed income but a lot, if not all, defined benefit plans
are. Will SS you get regular adjustments for inflation. These days
that is rare to non existent for pension plans. As long as inflation
is fairly low that is not a huge issue but that is going to change and
your whole pension, might not pay your utility bills.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

As mentioned most work jobs that the money comes in all the same each
pay period. Some get even less if they miss a day of work.
In my working years every job I had paid by the hour. If you were sick
or just took a day off, you did not get paid for those days.

After being retired I get SS and a pension every month and do not have
to worry about getting sick or having to take a day off without pay.

I will be getting more money next year as I have to take a RMD out of
the IRA . Getting senior discounts at places. Everything paid for, so
have more money now to 'blow' on things that I ever did during the
working years.

While I did have to be careful early on, I have for most
of the time been paid rather more than it was costing
me, enough to be able to run a light aircraft etc too.

Now I have realised that I am never going to spend what
I have accumulated before I die even if I live to 100.

God has looked out for my health. Sofar no major issues.
So no big medical bills.

Don't have that problem. Even when I had a heart attack
the only cost was a couple of newspapers to read in hospital.
Didn't have to pay for the stent or the air ambulance to the
state capital where they did the stent.

In article , "frank says...

Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.




Just like where I worked. For the first 10 years we got good raises,
then the business got bad. Some years we did not even get a raise, some
years we just got a small lump sum that was not even in pace with
inflation.

Ok on the pensions. That can be a fixed source of income. The one our
company had never goes up year to year so we loose out to inflation.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 05:32:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the pathological trolling senile asshole's troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:49:04 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

My term is "limitted income" - I can still go out and take on a job to
add a bit to the kitty - at least for a few more years - but even that
is "limitted".

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:43:38 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , "frank says...

Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.




Just like where I worked. For the first 10 years we got good raises,
then the business got bad. Some years we did not even get a raise, some
years we just got a small lump sum that was not even in pace with
inflation.

Ok on the pensions. That can be a fixed source of income. The one our
company had never goes up year to year so we loose out to inflation.

I went 27 years with no increase in pay. Went from being well paid for
the job to being grossly under-paid.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:17:07 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 11/13/2019 10:49 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

As mentioned most work jobs that the money comes in all the same each
pay period. Some get even less if they miss a day of work.
In my working years every job I had paid by the hour. If you were sick
or just took a day off, you did not get paid for those days.

After being retired I get SS and a pension every month and do not have
to worry about getting sick or having to take a day off without pay.

I will be getting more money next year as I have to take a RMD out of
the IRA . Getting senior discounts at places. Everything paid for, so
have more money now to 'blow' on things that I ever did during the
working years.

God has looked out for my health. Sofar no major issues.
So no big medical bills.


Fixed income for many may be pensions or anything else that does not
keep pace with inflation. You might get more SS every year but it does
not keep pace with inflation.

If that's true, why hasn't your super hero, Trump fixed it?







For op, it sounds like a good idea to keep paying before the bill water
bill comes in because many people, maybe most, do not know how to budget
or live within their means and cannot take an unexpected bill.

On 11/13/19 5:09 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:49:04 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

My term is "limitted income" - I can still go out and take on a job to
add a bit to the kitty - at least for a few more years - but even that
is "limitted".


I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.

And over age 65, due to age discrimination in hiring, we can't get hired
to any meaningful work if we tried.

I was out of work at age 54, and most "kids" doing hiring just could not
see "hiring their father" :-(

In article ,
says...

I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.



Sure you can change jobs if you are physically able. Change from
retired to Wallmart. Saw a sign today at a Walmart in NC they are
starting out at $ 11 an hour.

After I retired I was offered 2 jobs. I could probably work part time
at another if I really wanted to. I did not need the money,so turned it
all down.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:21:02 -0500, wrote:

On 11/13/19 5:09 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:49:04 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , says...

The fixed income thing is BS. Most of my working career my income was
fixed too, though more than SS. Unless you have variable overtime, that
applies to most of us. I understand the first month may have been a
problem but once resolved, every month is the same, so you can work with
it.



I never could get it in my head what fixed income really meant.

My term is "limitted income" - I can still go out and take on a job to
add a bit to the kitty - at least for a few more years - but even that
is "limitted".


I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.

And over age 65, due to age discrimination in hiring, we can't get hired
to any meaningful work if we tried.

I was out of work at age 54, and most "kids" doing hiring just could not
see "hiring their father" :-(
How about "hiring grand-dad". Thankfully I have a few clients who
don't mind having "grand-dad" around a day or two a month fixing
things the "youngsters"in charge either can't figure out or don't have
the time for.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:21:02 -0500, wrote:




I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.

And over age 65, due to age discrimination in hiring, we can't get hired
to any meaningful work if we tried.

I was out of work at age 54, and most "kids" doing hiring just could not
see "hiring their father" :-(

My daughter is 51. She recently moved and changed jobs and is the
oldest person in the office, including the owner that hired her. The
office manager is 21. Fortunately, she does not report to the alleged
manager, but it is good for some laughs watching her. She says it is
like watching kids trying to play grown-up. At least the kid is not
trying to manager her but she is a little intimidated so does not try.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 7:47:07 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

I look at it as "fixed" in the sense that I have no control re Social
Security and pension benefit amounts. I can't ask for a raise, get a
promotion, change "employer". And any COLAs don't begin to cover cost
increases.



Sure you can change jobs if you are physically able. Change from
retired to Wallmart. Saw a sign today at a Walmart in NC they are
starting out at $ 11 an hour.

For some of us a 40 hour week there would bring in less than SS.




After I retired I was offered 2 jobs. I could probably work part time
at another if I really wanted to. I did not need the money,so turned it
all down.

It happens, but it's certainly true that once you're into your 50s it
becomes hard to find a good, real job. Employers see some 55 year old
that was earning $150K and figure that they can hire a 30 year old
for $50K, give them raises over time, they will be happy. Even if the
55 year old takes the job for $50K, they figure they will only be there
until they find a higher paying job, won't be happy, etc, etc, etc.

In article ,
says...
You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .



I don't care about the market percentages, just the dollar amount in my
IRA. It has gone way up over the years. I did sell out of the stock a
couple of times over the years and bought it back. Actually they were
the mutual funds and not individual stock. I don't really have the time
to put into looking into individual stocks.

The day Trump is removed is the day I will most likely pull the money
out of stock and park it in a money market account. I agree, if he is
removed, the market and many other bad things may hapen.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:28:40 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...
You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .



I don't care about the market percentages, just the dollar amount in my
IRA. It has gone way up over the years. I did sell out of the stock a
couple of times over the years and bought it back. Actually they were
the mutual funds and not individual stock. I don't really have the time
to put into looking into individual stocks.

The day Trump is removed is the day I will most likely pull the money
out of stock and park it in a money market account. I agree, if he is
removed, the market and many other bad things may hapen.

They will happen regardless.

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.



and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

That last is bull****.

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never recovered.

And that's utterly mindless silly stuff too.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

DEpends what you call "middle class" - but by most reasonable
definitions you are definitely right.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:19:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

That last is bull****.

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never recovered.

And that's utterly mindless silly stuff too.

Argue with Milton Friedman and Krugman. It wasn't my assertion.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:19:10 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH

If it weren't for that senile gfretard on ahr, you'd have no playground on
this group at all, eh, Rodent, you trolling piece of senile Ozzie ****? BG

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 9:47:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.



and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Show us those economists that say the economic stagflation of the 70s was
caused by Nixon's resignation and that the middle class never recovered from
his resignation. I'm waiting. You're confused again. There already were
big economic troubles when Nixon was in office. Have you forgotten his wage
and price controls because inflation was out of control?

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.

So, instead of earning an 8%+ return and having it taxed 25%, you'd rather do
what? Put it into the bank and get 2%? Muni bonds and get 5%?



Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .


It also encourages mis-allocation of capital, people hindered from moving
their money to where it's most productive.

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.




and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?
Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.

Funny, originally stocks were simply ownership in a company and
profits were distributed as dividends. The secondary market for
equities perhaps shouldn't be used as the primary vehicle for
returns on investment; return the profits directly to the shareholders.

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 11:18:40 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?
Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.

Funny, originally stocks were simply ownership in a company and
profits were distributed as dividends.

It's never been different, shares always represented a ownership stake
in a company and what they do with profits has always been up to the
company. It would be might stupid for companies that are growing to
be handing out the profits when they can put those back into the
business and generate more revenue and profits.





The secondary market for
equities perhaps shouldn't be used as the primary vehicle for
returns on investment; return the profits directly to the shareholders.

Clearly you don't understand stocks and business. Yet you want to fix
what isn't broken and is working extremely well. The companies that
pay much of the profit out in dividend are fixed, old, limited ability
to grow and use the money themselves eg utilities.

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

In a time when the US ruled the world and competition wasn't as stiff.
To burden US industry today would just destroy our competitive position.










and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

That I agree with you on.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.