(04-01-2019 10:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The same way Trump would handle a disagreement on policy with Pelosi.
Interesting you think Obama's hands were tied.
As for criticizing Obama's (lack of) response, I was just setting the record straight in repose to Rice93's statement " It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack."
I disagree with your characterization that the Obama admin let it happen. He was stuck without a good option since the other side of the political equation didn't want to do anything. Context is important in understanding the decision. The outrage from the right would have been monumental if Obama had publicly brought to light the Russian efforts to help Trump.
A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.
Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.
Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?
No. Are you wearing your special glasses that let you see what you want me to say?
THE interference. what part of that phrase indicates to you that the interference was made up?
Propagandize. sure, tell the world that Putin wants Trump, and do with McConnell's blessing. What leftist would not love that?
OO --- it seems that lad has the 'people on the right are too ignorant to accede there was interference' bug today. he has hit that particular avenue quite hard today.
damn, I forgot to pray to my orange cheeto effigy. whatever will I do...... but at least I am 'allowed' to think there was interference now. lucky for me that happened, I guess.... I sure am glad lad told me I can think that now. maybe we can get him a gift since he has certainly gifted us with that enlightenment there.
(04-01-2019 10:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 10:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with your characterization that the Obama admin let it happen. He was stuck without a good option since the other side of the political equation didn't want to do anything. Context is important in understanding the decision. The outrage from the right would have been monumental if Obama had publicly brought to light the Russian efforts to help Trump.
A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.
Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.
Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?
No. Are you wearing your special glasses that let you see what you want me to say?
[THE interference. what part of that phrase indicates to you that the interference was made up?
Propagandize. sure, tell the world that Putin wants Trump, and do with McConnell's blessing. What leftist would not love that?
OO --- it seems that lad has the 'people on the right are too ignorant to accede there was interference' bug today. he has hit that particular avenue quite hard today.
damn, I forgot to pray to my orange cheeto effigy. whatever will I do...... but at least I am 'allowed' to think there was interference now. lucky for me that happened, I guess.... I sure am glad lad told me I can think that now. maybe we can get him a gift since he has certainly gifted us with that enlightenment there.
I don't see how he comes up with some of the things he does.
Sometimes I wonder if English is his first language. Other times I wonder if my choice of words is too polite - maybe I should be more explicit. In any case, he has trouble hearing what I say.
Most people, left and right, long ago conceded that Russia interfered. It seems to me that it was ineffectual and designed to sow discord, much more than it was designed to steal an election from Hillary and give it to Trump. If discord was the Russian objective, the Democrats gave it to them, and are still giving it to them. the Democrats are the gift that keeps on giving. I am sure every time Schiff is on TV, glasses are raised in Moscow.
I wonder why the Ukraine interference is ignored.
But the witch hunt was supposed to connect Trump with the Russian attack, and in that it failed, was doomed to fail to honest investigation. The whole story never made sense to begin with.
Lad, I'm guessing that you probably think of me as somebody "on the right," and I've been saying from the beginning that of course there was hacking. The Russians hack us, the Chinese hack us, any country with a pulse hacks us--and we hack all of them. It's how the espionage game is played. Donald Trump has nothing to do with whether or not they hacked us.
I find particularly laughable this notion advanced by some that Trump invited them to hack us in a campaign speech, and that was the very night they hacked the DNC, like they did it on command from Trump. One, you don't do conspiracies out in the open like that, that's not how they work. Two, IIRC what Trump was asking them to do, jokingly, is to hack Hillary's server and find the missing emails, while what they actually hacked was the DNC. That is, if it was actually the Russians that hacked her (more on that below). Three, you don't start up a hacking operation and immediately pick that kind of fruit on demand. For them to hack the DNC, they had been working on it for a while, long predating Donald Trump's candidacy. If they in fact broke through that night, that would have been more coincidence than anything else.
I understand part of the reason why they want to create this myth that "the Russians" started hacking us only because of Donald Trump. Because if they've been hacking us for years, then OMG that means they probably did hack Hillary's server and who knows, they very well might have Hillary's missing e-mails. And obviously that's not a rumor that they want to let get started. That leads to a huge takeaway for me. The Clinton crowd has always had a cavalier attitude toward information security--from Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents into his socks (and clothes, as Tanq has pointed out) to Hillary's server, to the DNC and Podesta. They apparently ignored warnings of hacking attempts. IMO that goes directly to fitness to serve. Do we want someone who is going to be that careless with, say, the nuclear launch codes?
Another thing has ben this contention that Russia somehow wanted Trump to win. What I think Russia wanted is to sow maximum division and discord. When one candidate is 80-90% certain of winning, you do that by pushing information--true or not--that is harmful to that candidate. Only the other guy won. But the last two years have certainly achieved the Russian goal of division and discord.
I see no indication that Trump is Putin's puppet. Rolling back the sanctions can be justified on many grounds, not the least of which are that when western Europe depends so heavily on Russia for oil and gas, it's hard to have effective sanctions, and the imposition of them looked a lot like Obama's petulant child reaction to Hillary's loss. Sending USN ships into the Black Sea is not the act of a puppet, although it may have little effect, nor is encouraging western Europe to find other sources of energy to break their Russian dependence, which could have substantial effect..
Finally, you have somehow suggested that anyone who offers alternative explanations for how the information got to Wikileaks is somehow suggesting that "the Russkis" did not hack and were not hacking. Those are two different questions. There are several reasons to question how the information was actually obtained. One, the strongest evidence I've seen that it was actually "the Russkis" is the intelligence estimates by the Obama administration intel bosses. Having worked as at least a part-time intel officer for years, I know that intel estimates are best guesses, because you don't have the ways of gathering evidence that are available in criminal cases--no subpoenas, no search warrants, no depositions, no sworn statements, no criminal investigations. They can be wrong, and badly so, if even one detail gets screwed up. Remember Saddam's WMDs? And that's not to say that somebody's thumb was on the scale, that's just the inherent nature of intel that it can be so wrong. Nazis thought D-Day was going to be Calais, not Normandy. Intel might be enough to indict in some cases, but would never be enough to convince me to convict. I will be very interested in seeing what evidence Mueller and his team have been able to come up with on this point. Two, we do have a murder under very suspicious circumstances, and that's not the first time someone close to Clinton has croaked under questionable circumstances. Three, there is the download speed issue that you reference. Four, WikiLeaks themselves have stated that they didn't get the data from "the Russkis." WikiLeaks has some not inconsiderable hacking capability of their own. Five, there is the rather curious fact that the servers involved were never turned over to law enforcement. What law enforcement got was a copy prepared by what was essentially an in-house data consultant. Objectivity can reasonably be questioned. Yes, it is possible to prepare a totally faithful and reliable copy--or not. My guess is that everybody and their brother, including "the Russkis," probably hacked the DNC at some point. They probably did not want to expose to the world that they leaked like a sieve. Off what we know so far, the leak could have come from anywhere. I will be very interested to see how much Mueller's team can corroborate this point.
(04-02-2019 03:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Five, there is the rather curious fact that the servers involved were never turned over to law enforcement. What law enforcement got was a copy prepared by what was essentially an in-house data consultant. Objectivity can reasonably be questioned. Yes, it is possible to prepare a totally faithful and reliable copy--or not.
This is the event that I was clumsily alluding to.
When in the course of any investigation is a 'copy' of something, rather than the thing itself, used?
I really don't care the Democrats reason for not wanting to have the actual item searched... It just gives me the feeling that 'protecting their information from investigation' is more important than preventing future hacks, not only of them, but of 'our Democratic institutions'.
I mean seriously... we aren't going to stop future hacks or attempts to undermine our system of government by indicting foreign actors over whom we have no jurisdiction or getting tough on Russia and telling them to stop it 'or else'. We would only stop it by teaching people to recognize it and giving them tools to deal with it.
What is that Dems cannot wait 12 days or so to get the full report? Do they think Barr is going to rewrite it, with Mueller's help?
What is that Dems cannot wait 12 days or so to get the full report? Do they think Barr is going to rewrite it, with Mueller's help?
(04-03-2019 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]What is that Dems cannot wait 12 days or so to get the full report? Do they think Barr is going to rewrite it, with Mueller's help?
They are worried that it is not going to say, "Orange man bad," for 3000 consecutive sentences, or how every many you can cram into 399 pages. And they are unwilling to accept anything else.
I am amused by the 'reports of members Mueller's team being in disagreement with Barr's assessment' line.
You can change that to 'Mueller's team whom are registered Democrats' and not change the population between the first and second sentences one iota. Lolz.
Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
(04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
(04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
(04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?
Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?
(04-04-2019 10:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?
Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?
Nope. I could not stand his apology tour. I didn't like the way he let Putin push him around. I didn't like the way he abandoned the Crimea. I didn't like the way he abandoned Israel. I did not agree with his health care plan. I didn't like being called a bitter clinger. And BTW, he is a great example of a casher. When did he start a business, run a business, finance a business? His business experience was less than that of a kid with a lemonade stand. To this day, he gets checks from speaking engagements and book publishers, and cashes them.
I vaunt paycheck signers? What exactly does that mean?
Obviously, not all paycheck signers or cashers are the same. But so many cashers are anti-business, anti-boss, and anti-wealth. I blame it on a lack of understanding. They have never walked a mile in the boss's shoes. When did AOC ever have any skin in the game? Maybe that is why it is so easy for her to make the proposals she does. Easy to decide what to do with OPM when you never had to put any of your own in.
I would rather have leaders who have some idea of what it takes for the millions of business owners in this country to open a business and to stay in business, rather than somebody who thinks making a profit and growing a business is inherently evil. Maybe that is one reason I liked Schultz. He's been there. Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, et al, not so much.
Yeah, if the stock market falls 25% between now and election day, I won't be happy, but a lot of Democrats will be. Why is misery, loss, and unemployment on their wish list? Oh, yeah, gotta win the WH.
(04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
I manage one employee already and am about to hire my second direct report in the next few weeks. I work for an employee owned firm that has recently decided to extend the ability to own stock to employees at my level, and what do you know, that option was extended to me.
I do have a 401k, butI don't pay too much attention to it because it's too far away for me to care about the ups and downs. If I did, I would have been tearing my hair out as the market was crashing and booming seemingly each week at the end of 2018. I do hope that the market does well overall.
So, you're like 1.5 for 3.
(04-05-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 10:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?
Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?
Nope. I could not stand his apology tour. I didn't like the way he let Putin push him around. I didn't like the way he abandoned the Crimea. I didn't like the way he abandoned Israel. I did not agree with his health care plan. I didn't like being called a bitter clinger. And BTW, he is a great example of a casher. When did he start a business, run a business, finance a business? His business experience was less than that of a kid with a lemonade stand. To this day, he gets checks from speaking engagements and book publishers, and cashes them.
I vaunt paycheck signers? What exactly does that mean?
Obviously, not all paycheck signers or cashers are the same. But so many cashers are anti-business, anti-boss, and anti-wealth. I blame it on a lack of understanding. They have never walked a mile in the boss's shoes. When did AOC ever have any skin in the game? Maybe that is why it is so easy for her to make the proposals she does. Easy to decide what to do with OPM when you never had to put any of your own in.
I would rather have leaders who have some idea of what it takes for the millions of business owners in this country to open a business and to stay in business, rather than somebody who thinks making a profit and growing a business is inherently evil. Maybe that is one reason I liked Schultz. He's been there. Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, et al, not so much.
Yeah, if the stock market falls 25% between now and election day, I won't be happy, but a lot of Democrats will be. Why is misery, loss, and unemployment on their wish list? Oh, yeah, gotta win the WH.
I think there's significant value in being a paycheck signer and a chaser, per your descriptions.
Speaking anecdotally, it was incredibly beneficial for me to have been a busser at a restaurant in high school and see what it was like to bust my ass physically to make a wage. It was dirty, gross, and rather tough work, but rewarding.
Prior to my current job, my next best experience was managing Willy's Pub where I had to hire, fire, manage payroll, etc. It provided good perspective on how difficult it was to play that roll, even when it was just for students trying to earn some beer money.
I think being in each role provides different perspectives about what life is like as a worker or an owner/manager.
BTW, the S&P 500 increased by over almost 30% from the peak prior to the financial collapse by the time Obama left, so if you're happy with Trump's gains, you should have been happy with those returns.
(04-05-2019 06:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
I manage one employee already and am about to hire my second direct report in the next few weeks. I work for an employee owned firm that has recently decided to extend the ability to own stock to employees at my level, and what do you know, that option was extended to me.
I do have a 401k, butI don't pay too much attention to it because it's too far away for me to care about the ups and downs. If I did, I would have been tearing my hair out as the market was crashing and booming seemingly each week at the end of 2018. I do hope that the market does well overall.
So, you're like 1.5 for 3.
I asked if you sign paychecks, Lad, not if you supervised somebody.
I have no experience with employee owned companies, so I have a few questions.
When it comes time for the company to borrow money for any reason, are you one of the co-signers?
If the company were to go under owing a ton of money, would the creditors come to you for part or all of it?
If the answers are yes, then you have skin in the game. If they are No, then you are no different from the millions who own stock in ExxonMobil.
That employee you manage...Can you fire him? If you decide to fire him...do you do it yourself or call HR? can you give him a raise?
Skin in the game is more than telling somebody what to do. Lots of paycheck cashers supervise people. Go to McDonalds for breakfast, and somebody will be the assistant shift manager.
some advice from somebody who has been there - pay attention to that 401K. Put in at least as much as the company will match, and pay attention to how it is invested. A year when you are 30 is worth 10X as much as a year when you are 60. Same advice I gave my 25 YO son when he took a job with a big company up north. Now he is 49 and beginning to appreciate his 401K.
I saw an example once of twin brothers, age 18. One invested $10K a year for 8 years, then stopping adding money. The other waited 8 years and then invested 10K a year for 39 years. Assuming a constant rate of return, which brother do you think had the most at age 65? Yep, the early bird.
Unless you can show me you have skin in the game, I think I am 3-3.
(04-05-2019 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 10:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?
Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?
Nope. I could not stand his apology tour. I didn't like the way he let Putin push him around. I didn't like the way he abandoned the Crimea. I didn't like the way he abandoned Israel. I did not agree with his health care plan. I didn't like being called a bitter clinger. And BTW, he is a great example of a casher. When did he start a business, run a business, finance a business? His business experience was less than that of a kid with a lemonade stand. To this day, he gets checks from speaking engagements and book publishers, and cashes them.
I vaunt paycheck signers? What exactly does that mean?
Obviously, not all paycheck signers or cashers are the same. But so many cashers are anti-business, anti-boss, and anti-wealth. I blame it on a lack of understanding. They have never walked a mile in the boss's shoes. When did AOC ever have any skin in the game? Maybe that is why it is so easy for her to make the proposals she does. Easy to decide what to do with OPM when you never had to put any of your own in.
I would rather have leaders who have some idea of what it takes for the millions of business owners in this country to open a business and to stay in business, rather than somebody who thinks making a profit and growing a business is inherently evil. Maybe that is one reason I liked Schultz. He's been there. Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, et al, not so much.
Yeah, if the stock market falls 25% between now and election day, I won't be happy, but a lot of Democrats will be. Why is misery, loss, and unemployment on their wish list? Oh, yeah, gotta win the WH.
I think there's significant value in being a paycheck signer and a chaser, per your descriptions.
Speaking anecdotally, it was incredibly beneficial for me to have been a busser at a restaurant in high school and see what it was like to bust my ass physically to make a wage. It was dirty, gross, and rather tough work, but rewarding.
Prior to my current job, my next best experience was managing Willy's Pub where I had to hire, fire, manage payroll, etc. It provided good perspective on how difficult it was to play that roll, even when it was just for students trying to earn some beer money.
I think being in each role provides different perspectives about what life is like as a worker or an owner/manager.
BTW, the S&P 500 increased by over almost 30% from the peak prior to the financial collapse by the time Obama left, so if you're happy with Trump's gains, you should have been happy with those returns.
Hmm. What has been the increase in the Dow from Election Day to now?
edit: 26,422.39/18,332.74 = 1.442358861, over only 28.5 months. 44%+. FYI
But yes, I was happy, somewhat, with Obama's returns. I felt they could have and should have been better, had he followed more sound economic principles. Cash for clunkers? shovel-ready jobs?
But my point was not Trump vs. Obama. It was that it is good to have leaders who understand business So far, Schultz is the only lefty who qualifies. maybe if they had managed a pub or bussed tables, the others would not be so inept.
BTW, my job equivalent to your bussing tables was working in a sawmill at minimum wage. I assume your restaurant was at least air conditioned, and nobody lost a hand. My job equivalent to your pub work (and apparently your current job) was managing a department within a firm. I hired and fired, and scheduled, but I did not have to finance the company and I had no fiscal responsibility.
(04-05-2019 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 06:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 05:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Got in my quarterly statements today. Trump can tell all the bad jokes he wants and nickname anybody he wants as long as the economy keeps up this performance.
I live off my retirement funds and support my invalid sister from them, so maybe this means more to me than it does to you paycheck cashers.
Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
I manage one employee already and am about to hire my second direct report in the next few weeks. I work for an employee owned firm that has recently decided to extend the ability to own stock to employees at my level, and what do you know, that option was extended to me.
I do have a 401k, butI don't pay too much attention to it because it's too far away for me to care about the ups and downs. If I did, I would have been tearing my hair out as the market was crashing and booming seemingly each week at the end of 2018. I do hope that the market does well overall.
So, you're like 1.5 for 3.
I asked if you sign paychecks, Lad, not if you supervised somebody.
I have no experience with employee owned companies, so I have a few questions.
When it comes time for the company to borrow money for any reason, are you one of the co-signers?
If the company were to go under owing a ton of money, would the creditors come to you for part or all of it?
If the answers are yes, then you have skin in the game. If they are No, then you are no different from the millions who own stock in ExxonMobil.
That employee you manage...Can you fire him? If you decide to fire him...do you do it yourself or call HR? can you give him a raise?
Skin in the game is more than telling somebody what to do. Lots of paycheck cashers supervise people. Go to McDonalds for breakfast, and somebody with the assistant shift manager.
some advice from somebody who has been there - pay attention to that 401K. Put in at least as much as the company will match, and pay attention to how it is invested. A year when you are 30 is worth 10X as much as a year when you are 60. Same advice I gave my 25 YO son when he took a job with a big company up north. Now he is 49 and beginning to appreciate his 401K.
I saw an example once of twin brothers, age 18. One invested $10K a year for 8 years, then stopping adding money. The other waited 8 years and then invested 10K a year for 39 years. Assuming a constant rate of return, which brother do you think had the most at age 65? Yep, the early bird.
I think what you're telling me is that you don't actually include managers in your definition of pay check signers...
A lot of the questions you ask don't apply to managers, even if they are worrying about making payroll. And they especially don't apply to managers in a mid-size to large firm.
We're an employee owned firm of 1,200 people that does not allow a single shareholder (even our ex-CEO and founder) to own more than 3% of the stock.
We also have people with different levels of management responsibilities. Mine is at the base floor - managing and being responsible for a single employee. My boss, is a bit further up - she manages an entire office. But even she has limitations on her personal liability and what she can be responsible for and who she can/cannot fire, give raises to, etc. without approval (hint, no one - that's because no one in our company can give those orders without oversight). But she is certainly a manager when the health of an entire office is on her shoulders and she is responsible for it. However, based on your definition, she wouldn't qualify as a manager.
So remove "manager" from your description, because you really don't consider them pay check signers, and you're 2.5 for 3.
And as many people have told me - don't pay attention to your 401k or you'll go crazy. The stock market is a long game - celebrating 1 year gains means you're also fretting over 1 year loses. That's not a healthy way to live. I contribute significantly to it because I understand the benefit of it as a long-term investment tool. I appreciate it as an investment tool, but I take the long game approach, as I should. I do appreciate that you're advocating for me to use my 401k.
(04-05-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 06:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whats with the paycheck casher line?
I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
I manage one employee already and am about to hire my second direct report in the next few weeks. I work for an employee owned firm that has recently decided to extend the ability to own stock to employees at my level, and what do you know, that option was extended to me.
I do have a 401k, butI don't pay too much attention to it because it's too far away for me to care about the ups and downs. If I did, I would have been tearing my hair out as the market was crashing and booming seemingly each week at the end of 2018. I do hope that the market does well overall.
So, you're like 1.5 for 3.
I asked if you sign paychecks, Lad, not if you supervised somebody.
I have no experience with employee owned companies, so I have a few questions.
When it comes time for the company to borrow money for any reason, are you one of the co-signers?
If the company were to go under owing a ton of money, would the creditors come to you for part or all of it?
If the answers are yes, then you have skin in the game. If they are No, then you are no different from the millions who own stock in ExxonMobil.
That employee you manage...Can you fire him? If you decide to fire him...do you do it yourself or call HR? can you give him a raise?
Skin in the game is more than telling somebody what to do. Lots of paycheck cashers supervise people. Go to McDonalds for breakfast, and somebody with the assistant shift manager.
some advice from somebody who has been there - pay attention to that 401K. Put in at least as much as the company will match, and pay attention to how it is invested. A year when you are 30 is worth 10X as much as a year when you are 60. Same advice I gave my 25 YO son when he took a job with a big company up north. Now he is 49 and beginning to appreciate his 401K.
I saw an example once of twin brothers, age 18. One invested $10K a year for 8 years, then stopping adding money. The other waited 8 years and then invested 10K a year for 39 years. Assuming a constant rate of return, which brother do you think had the most at age 65? Yep, the early bird.
I think what you're telling me is that you don't actually include managers in your definition of pay check signers...
A lot of the questions you ask don't apply to managers, even if they are worrying about making payroll. And they especially don't apply to managers in a mid-size to large firm.
We're an employee owned firm of 1,200 people that does not allow a single shareholder (even our ex-CEO and founder) to own more than 3% of the stock.
We also have people with different levels of management responsibilities. Mine is at the base floor - managing and being responsible for a single employee. My boss, is a bit further up - she manages an entire office. But even she has limitations on her personal liability and what she can be responsible for and who she can/cannot fire, give raises to, etc. without approval (hint, no one - that's because no one in our company can give those orders without oversight). But she is certainly a manager when the health of an entire office is on her shoulders and she is responsible for it. However, based on your definition, she wouldn't qualify as a manager.
So remove "manager" from your description, because you really don't consider them pay check signers, and you're 2.5 for 3.
And as many people have told me - don't pay attention to your 401k or you'll go crazy. The stock market is a long game - celebrating 1 year gains means you're also fretting over 1 year loses. That's not a healthy way to live. I contribute significantly to it because I understand the benefit of it as a long-term investment tool. I appreciate it as an investment tool, but I take the long game approach, as I should. I do appreciate that you're advocating for me to use my 401k.
Yeah, some people who are called managers I do not count as as signers, some I do.
The IRS makes the same distinction when they ask if some or all of your investment is not at risk.
So when your company needs money, nobody is personally responsible? Must be nice. I had a seven figure line of credit, and I was personally responsible for it. House, car, land, food in the fridge, every penny's worth of assets at risk. Every day, all day long. When times got tough, and they did, many sleepless nights wondering how to get the business through this crisis. I have been sued for $10,000,000 personally for company business (I won, but it was a tough six years.) Is anybody going to sue you personally?
Most employees risk is limited to the two weeks of labor since their last check. If the company shuts down, they lose that and no more.
I don't think somebody who risen through the ranks and made a success for themselves and their company is the same as somebody who rose just a little or not at all, and the successful people are the ones I want running the government. Some Democrats fit the bill, but most of them fall in the category of conservative Democrat, so it is hard for them to get elected now.
I haven't looked it up, but what are the work histories of AOC and O'Rourke?
As it stands now, my preference will be either Trump or Schultz over the cast of thousands. This time in 2015/16, my preference was Fiorena. But depending on how things work out over the next 20 months, it will be one of those two or a complete abdication of my vote.
(04-05-2019 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-05-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 10:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019 09:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I roughly divide people into two groups.
The first is entrepreneurs, company officers, managers, etc. they are the people who worry about how to make payroll. They have skin in the game. I call them paycheck signers.
The other group are employees who have little skin in the game, and little understanding of business or economics. I call them paycheck signers.
It has nothing to do with the size of the checks. A self-employed plumber is a check signer. The head of security for a Fortune 500 company is a paycheck casher.
Do you sign paychecks, lad? My guess is no.
Do you have a 401K? My guess is yes, and that you are happy with the returns you got this past quarter. Do you hope for those returns to continue? I do, and that is one reason I won't be voting for the Democrat on 2020.
Listened some to Howard Schultz today. If I don't vote GOP, he is a viable alternative. My guess is that you did not hear him.
did I go 3-3 with my guesses?
OO... how did you enjoy your returns under the Obama presidency? Did you vote for him for his second term based on those returns?
Why do you assume that Lad is not one of your vaunted "paycheck signers"? Is it a pure percentage play given that the majority of people are employees rather than employers or is it something specific to Lad?
Nope. I could not stand his apology tour. I didn't like the way he let Putin push him around. I didn't like the way he abandoned the Crimea. I didn't like the way he abandoned Israel. I did not agree with his health care plan. I didn't like being called a bitter clinger. And BTW, he is a great example of a casher. When did he start a business, run a business, finance a business? His business experience was less than that of a kid with a lemonade stand. To this day, he gets checks from speaking engagements and book publishers, and cashes them.
I vaunt paycheck signers? What exactly does that mean?
Obviously, not all paycheck signers or cashers are the same. But so many cashers are anti-business, anti-boss, and anti-wealth. I blame it on a lack of understanding. They have never walked a mile in the boss's shoes. When did AOC ever have any skin in the game? Maybe that is why it is so easy for her to make the proposals she does. Easy to decide what to do with OPM when you never had to put any of your own in.
I would rather have leaders who have some idea of what it takes for the millions of business owners in this country to open a business and to stay in business, rather than somebody who thinks making a profit and growing a business is inherently evil. Maybe that is one reason I liked Schultz. He's been there. Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, et al, not so much.
Yeah, if the stock market falls 25% between now and election day, I won't be happy, but a lot of Democrats will be. Why is misery, loss, and unemployment on their wish list? Oh, yeah, gotta win the WH.
I think there's significant value in being a paycheck signer and a chaser, per your descriptions.
Speaking anecdotally, it was incredibly beneficial for me to have been a busser at a restaurant in high school and see what it was like to bust my ass physically to make a wage. It was dirty, gross, and rather tough work, but rewarding.
Prior to my current job, my next best experience was managing Willy's Pub where I had to hire, fire, manage payroll, etc. It provided good perspective on how difficult it was to play that roll, even when it was just for students trying to earn some beer money.
I think being in each role provides different perspectives about what life is like as a worker or an owner/manager.
BTW, the S&P 500 increased by over almost 30% from the peak prior to the financial collapse by the time Obama left, so if you're happy with Trump's gains, you should have been happy with those returns.
Hmm. What has been the increase in the Dow from Election Day to now?
edit: 26,422.39/18,332.74 = 1.442358861, over only 28.5 months. 44%+. FYI
But yes, I was happy, somewhat, with Obama's returns. I felt they could have and should have been better, had he followed more sound economic principles. Cash for clunkers? shovel-ready jobs?
But my point was not Trump vs. Obama. It was that it is good to have leaders who understand business So far, Schultz is the only lefty who qualifies. maybe if they had managed a pub or bussed tables, the others would not be so inept.
BTW, my job equivalent to your bussing tables was working in a sawmill at minimum wage. I assume your restaurant was at least air conditioned, and nobody lost a hand. My job equivalent to your pub work (and apparently your current job) was managing a department within a firm. I hired and fired, and scheduled, but I did not have to finance the company and I had no fiscal responsibility.
What is this, a pissing match of who had the hardest, menial labor job?
My current job sends me on a regular basis to industrial sites where I'm often directly overseeing drilling, working with complex mechanical systems, or collecting media samples. It's a job where I'm can be working in FRC's in 90+ degree, Louisiana heat, inside an air conditioned trailer, or in 20 degree weather on the Hudson River in 20 mph wind. So my current job is much more dangerous than my bussing job, and I do regularly work in areas and around equipment where people lose limbs or worse. Can we end this stupid pissing match you started?
My point about bussing was that being a pay check casher is also important with respect to politics. It's good for everyone to have an experience where they do physical labor to earn money. It's teaches people a lot about how to work on a team, persevere through crappy situations, and just how difficult unglamerous jobs are, and why the interests of those paycheck cashers should be considered. That's why I love the show Dirty Jobs - it does a great job highlighting the crappy jobs people do to make society work.