holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Please go on, you don't even understand simple English words.

I understand that everything Hofstra said is correct..

Everything Hofstra said is about as wrong as it can be. Anyone who thinks banks rely on interest earnings from savings accounts and CDs for their working capital shouldn't be holding a discussion on economics. I posted a WSJ article that shows banking profits at all time highs during the years with the lowest interest rates in history. You can sit here and pretend that it doesn't exist, but you haven't provided jack to support anything you said.

BTW - I never said anything about the prime rate being based on the 10 yr note, I was talking about bank lending (primarily mortgages - google 30 yr mortgage rate and see if its based on the 10 year bond yield or not). But reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing.

Anyway, I think I have embarrassed you enough for one night.

POGS

Edit - my bad - I did mistakenly post (10 yr bond) next to prime rate -different post, they are separate

meloshouldgo
Posts: 21326
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

9/27/2016 6:04 PM

Additionally banks also get to borrow money at the prime rate (10 yr bond) and then put those into risky investments that yield double digit returns

And do tell me where I can find those double digit yields..

That would be junk bonds. Try the energy sector currently yielding around 15%
You seem to be arrogant, uninformed and snippy. I have provided link after link supporting everything I said. You have provided no support for anything because you are shooting theories out of your ass.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/wells-fargos-problem-emerges-17-billion-junk-energy-exposure

I am officially done making an example out of you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, BORING.

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Please go on, you don't even understand simple English words.

I understand that everything Hofstra said is correct..

Everything Hofstra said is about as wrong as it can be. Anyone who thinks banks rely on interest earnings from savings accounts and CDs for their working capital shouldn't be holding a discussion on economics. I posted a WSJ article that shows banking profits at all time highs during the years with the lowest interest rates in history. You can sit here and pretend that it doesn't exist, but you haven't provided jack to support anything you said.

BTW - I never said anything about the prime rate being based on the 10 yr note, I was talking about bank lending (primarily mortgages - google 30 yr mortgage rate and see if its based on the 10 year bond yield or not). But reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing.

Anyway, I think I have embarrassed you enough for one night.

POGS
Edit - my bad - I did mistakenly post (10 yr bond) next to prime rate -different post, they are separate

meloshouldgo
Posts: 21326
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

9/27/2016 6:04 PM

Additionally banks also get to borrow money at the prime rate (10 yr bond) and then put those into risky investments that yield double digit returns

And do tell me where I can find those double digit yields..

That would be junk bonds. Try the energy sector currently yielding around 15%
You seem to be arrogant, uninformed and snippy. I have provided link after link supporting everything I said. You have provided no support for anything because you are shooting theories out of your ass.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/wells-fargos-problem-emerges-17-billion-junk-energy-exposure

I am officially done making an example out of you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, BORING.

Well I am trying to avoid confrontations to be honest..I think I have done enough of that on this site over the years...But you are putting out a few things that aren't really correct..And when it's pointed out, you are getting offended...There are so many things on the previous pages that I just ignored as you were telling me you schooled me...I have no interest...I posted one where you said, you never said prime rate(10 yr bond), I showed you where you said it, and you said nothing to acknowledge you were wrong...A bit Trumpian of you...

Actually I said I was wrong when I found the post you had referenced- if ONLY you could read. You haven't pointed out anything else that hasn't been completely and thoroughly refuted

On the other hand you have said one wrong thing after another-

- Banks make more money from lending in high interest rate periods
- Banks had highest profits during the high interest rate periods
- I am wrong about double digit yields
- What Hofstraball said about spreads being the lowest during ZIRP is right

These are just examples from the last 3 ages

And I have provided examples against each and every one of your positions and you have provided nothing but snitty remarks. Now as far as admitting you are wrong goes, I am still waiting. I made one error in cut and paste on one post and you have posted about that 4 times, total number of responses to all the evidence I have provided - BIG FUKKING ZERO.

I think anyone reading this can draw their own conclusions.

Save your hall of fame posting accomplishments on this site, for someone who cares. I am really going to take Mr. Einmann's advice and not respond further because in this day age trolls are best left unfed.

Good night.

BRIGGS wrote:As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.

In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.

Scott’s criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm.

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Trump's debate incompetance a slap in the face to his supporters

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

Good article for the NYPost, speaks to the delusion that some have that Trump won the debate.

It depends on what "winning the debate" means. On an intellectual level, Hillary won by a landslide. But if winning the debate means moving the polls in your favor, we'll have to wait and see. I'm really not sure what will happen with the polls. Hillary won on the issues but I think Donald's way of speaking connects with more people.

If you ask Trump about the weather, he is liable to start off telling you how bad the clouds are, then move to how horrible the grass looks, then how the trains don't run on time, then how much he like oreo cookies and people are suppose to pretend it makes sense?

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.

In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.

Scott’s criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm.

So he deserved to be killed?

I dont want to see anyone die but this was a guy who was a very serious convicted felon(who spent almost 7 years in jail for shooting someone) Ther was a reason why the cops acted the way they did--I think the backround of this man gives the police a big benefit of the doubt. I mean no one I know has done 6 years of hard time for shooting another person or committing crime on someone under 12? this wasnt the nicest person in the world by a longshot. The m ore I read about many "victims" of police violence not dependent on color creed race---more likely than not these people have significant pasts. When a felon puts a gun on his person when he should not have one--you take a chance that you may not come home. Thats on him

What evidence do you have the police did a background check on him before they acted? Or did they just look at him and decide he was a criminal?

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:As reported in the Charlotte Observer (but buried at the very bottom of a lengthy post), Scott also has a criminal history in North Carolina and South Carolina, dating back to 1992. A public records search shows Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and the misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female, and communicating threats.

In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges. Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.

Scott’s criminal record is significant in light of police reports that he was carrying a gun at the time of his fatal encounter with a police officer this week. Under federal law (18 U.S.C 922(g)(1-9)), it is illegal for anyone who has been “convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm.

So he deserved to be killed?

I dont want to see anyone die but this was a guy who was a very serious convicted felon(who spent almost 7 years in jail for shooting someone) There was a reason why the cops acted the way they did--I think the backround of this man gives the police a big benefit of the doubt. I mean no one I know has done 6 years of hard time for shooting another person or committing crime on someone under 12? this wasnt the nicest person in the world by a longshot. The m ore I read about many "victims" of police violence not dependent on color creed race---more likely than not these people have significant pasts. When a felon puts a gun on his person when he should not have one--you take a chance that you may not come home. Thats on him

1992 was 24 years ago(when he was 19), and 2004 was 12 years ago(31). From what you have posted majority of his charges were dismissed. But in reality we don't know the details of those situations to character assassinate him.

Officers were aware of all this information during real time though? Because of questionable decisions from 24 and 12 yrs ago?

How many officers are able to do outlandish things then leave there current police force to join another one. How about you track the past history of all police officers involved in all these shootings just the same.

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Anyone saw 60 minutes???..The Cold War is on full bore..US B2 bombers making runs to Russia over the last year..Each B2 bomber capable of carrying 40,000 lbs of nuclear weapons..We wanted to send a message after Crimea and Ukraine..Crazy stuff, a bit shocking to be honest..Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states..

You make it sound like someone can actually win one of these wars. Heck, we can't even win conventional wars in the middle East.
Let's just stick to our business and try to get America back on track and stop worrying about Ukraine, etc.

And regarding Putin/Russia, they probably don't like the missile offensive (or do we call it defensive?) shield surrounding them, just as we wouldn't want it surrounding us.

We have to learn to get along and not buy into this BS military spending fear campaign. Life is pretty good once you stop watching their news and stop buying into their fear campaign.

Peace out

I was actually trying to spur conversation about a very serious topic in the backdrop of the presidential debate..I'm not sure how you deduce I'm a proponent of nuclear war..Like it or not these issues are real and current..The next president will have to manage the Cold War and our relationship with Russia..I don't think the candidate mentioning Rosie O'Donnell at a presidential debate is qualified to manage our nuclear arsenal...Getting America back on track??.We are still the most dynamic economy on the planet and our growth numbers 1.5/2% is largely due to global growth than our economy..

If you are really a patriot of the United States..Cleary he is unqualified..How do you put party politics ahead of the good of the country and talk about getting the country on track??..Trump is dangerously naive and unprepared...If he doesn't care enough to prepare for a debate why would he do the necessary study of material needed to run this country after becoming president..He is a narcissist..

He mocked the debate preparation process by saying he was at the Westchester Country Club eating cheeseburgers..Do we understand what's at stake here?

You sound too much like ra ra pom pom when it comes to Clinton or the US. We need to all get along is what I'm saying. With nuclear war, there is no us vs them and where did I say you were a proponent? You certainly sound like "we showed them". There are a few who survive, we all lose. Get over "we showed them..." types of mentality. It is a dog and pony show.

I'm not a patriot of the US, I'm a Earthling and see myself as just another person. Patriotism and Nationalism got us into most of these problems.

So, something to think about. I'm so deathly afraid of Clinton being president that I would rather have an underqualified (can't say unqualified cause if Bush could be president, honestly, anyone one of us could.) Trump knows business, Clinton knows politics. I still don't want her anywhere near a red button. Thank God for checks and balances though, regarding either of them. I still think, economically speaking, Trump would be much better for the US. We all know how Bill sold the Chinese, was it nuclear secrets or the like? What a team we'll have in the white house and her main concern, imo, will be fullfilling favors and getting richer. She's in the club, don't you see it?

Speaking of what is at stake, Do you want a woman who is on all kinds of drugs just so she can function? She is sick. And outside of her physical problems, more than one person has come out and defined here as not a very stable person.
Seriously, you are like the Nixluva of Clinton, that is how you come across. She can do no wrong. This is Pepsi or Coke...

When the voting takes place, I'm going to be interested in the exit polls, cause the last few years they suddenly stopped "working".

You assessment of my comments continues to be way off..I have said multiple times in this very thread as well, I don't care for Clinton, yet you claim I cheer for her..Puzzling

I referred to the US flying B2 bombers to Russia as "Crazy stuff, and a bit shocking", yet you say I was selling the message "We showed them"..
I know facts isn't a strong suit for republicans but for our discussions, let's try to stick to them especially when it comes to accusations...Deal??

It is true I am a Patriot of the US..I put the country's interest ahead of all party politics...I also put the US interest ahead of other countries because I live here...Patriotism didn't get us in this mess internationally, Republicans got us in this mess and Tramp wants to put ground troops in Iraq again....

You seems to be concerned with rhetoric you tend to hear on obscure websites that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese???..Come on, let engage in serious, known quantity events, from known quantity sources, can we??
So here is my challenge to you..The stock market sold off when Tramp's polls numbers pulled even to Clinton on Friday and was bought back after Clinton won the debate..What do you know that the rest of the planet doesn't know about Tramp???

And as for Tramp's business acumen..His businesses went bankrupt six times, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but yes, SIX times...And you think he should lead this country based on his business acumen...He took over his father business in 1974 valued at 40 million dollars...If he liquidated his company's assets and bought the S&P 500 index, his portfolio would be valued at 4.266 billion today...Tramp is estimated to be worth less than 1 billion dollars in some quarters..He has under performed all his life, he under performed in the debate...By contrast, Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg LP in 1981 from scratch, off his own sweat, and now his net worth is 44.5 billion dollars...That is a guy you would want to lead this country if business acumen was your sole criteria, and who did he endorse???????..I hold a higher standard for my Presidents by the way..Are you a better judge of business acumen than Bloomberg????Bloomberg spoke about Tramp's business acumen, you should look it up...

P.S. And he hasn't built anything in the last decade, he is now in the business of selling his name to projects...

Continues? I haven't read the full 80 pages, I jump in and out and was replying to the post I quoted but also noted, as have others, that you seem to cheerlead for Hillary and I don't get it. This really is a lesser of two evils race. And yes you said "crazy" but followed that with "Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states.." That is like saying "my sword is bigger than yours." No harm in that, but that is what I was talking about. Not meaning to pick on you, really.

Your ideas on Patriotism are dangerous. You can't put yourself ahead of others, we are on equal ground and share the planet. I'm an American living in Europe (not why I made the last comment either) and see we need to get along in a big way.

Obscure sites, well, considering the ties of the Clintons to big media, yeah, you will not here it on CNN, FOX, etc, much, maybe in passing.
But a simple search reveals a lot, for starters. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts
The cocain trade through Arkansas while Clinton was governor is so crystal clear. That family is just bad news and dark.
And going to Amazon.com and putting in "Clinton" reveals a host of other dark things. These 2 people are not one of us. They serve higher masters, for lack of a better word.
Maybe Trump does to, but I feel he is a loose cannon, not under their control, but who knows.

And sorry, some things you won't find on mainstream, because, well, their in the same club.

You mention rhetoric and then say Tramp, why not say Hitlery too? lol

I don't doubt Trump is gonna have problems, but he is not, for a lack of a better word, evil. Honestly, I and many others, just plain do not trust the Clintons. They are not here for us.
Luckily we have some form of a democracy left, and perhaps Trump can create enough chaos to disrupt the system. Not the answer, but what are our choices? More of the same?

The bold... who is Trump here for? When Clinton called him out for stiffing all those people that worked for him he didn't even deny it. His exact quote was he followed the laws of the land. Then he said he looks out for himself, his family and his company.

The problem is its impossible to have real discussion with a Trump supporter. Trump's history is atrocious. He's phucked people over at every turn. He's been sued twice for not renting to minorities by the justice department. Trump isn't evil? He's the ultimate evil using power and money to swindle and scheme. $10mm in tuition collected from Trump university and after promising to hand pick the faculty he couldn't name one teacher, not ONE in the whole "school." Any outline of policy he puts out there is a disaster.

The best part is every chat with a Trump supporter eventually ends in how evil Hillary is but nobody knows because she control mainstream media. How about just holding them accountable for what comes out of their mouths?

You are right. Hillary and the Clintons are not here for us. They are products of the establishment and special interest groups. However at the very worst she toes the party line and while there is plenty of evil here that is the most manageable. Are the Clinton secrets worse than Trumps? You want policy made by someone in bed with Russian and Chinese banks (if you believe one you believe both right?).

At the end of the day people vote for "their guy" or gal in this case and just ignore facts, aside from the 1 or 2 that matter the most. Everything about Trump is bad. His constant lies. His history is terrible. The only thing he brings to the table is he's not a politician, but who cares? He's a BAD guy.

Again, lesser of two evils here. Don't confuse me as "supporting" Trump. I'm just deathly afraid of Clinton(s).
Hillary has already accused Russia of being behind the email leaks. No evidence, says the FBI/DOJ (forget which one said that), but just like in Libya, she goes against those who knows and makes her own decisions. A bit Trump like, but I don't fear him starting WWIII. If Hillary is elected, the war mode goes into full high gear and that I am more afraid of than a big mouthed Trump. That will be more than toeing the party line. And yeah, I think the Clintons secrets are worse than Trumps. I don't think 40 or so people who worked for or around Trump are now dead - you know - 2 shots to the head suicides and stuff like that. She is a part of a big old machine and I am worried about that machine getting more power.