Interesting article of union spending

[madchemist]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2 ... latestnews

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

[Muda69]

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

? Are you drunk?

[madchemist]

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

? Are you drunk?

How so? Are these valid use of tax free monies?

[imzhammer]

Do we have the ability to put up a poll?

I think we need to to vote on what we think colts will call the chemist because of this thread:

1. psycho
2. moron
3. republican
4. clown
5. fucking idiot
6. All of the above

[coltsfan1955]

Poor, desperate republicans. I've always told them, or tried to pierce their ignorance to tell them, that our pension funds invest heavily in real estate. Now when the Wall Street Journal shows them that there are far better ways to invest money than to gamble recklessly on Wall Street, they gloat that we are somehow doing something dirty.

So does this make the republicans ignorant or physcos or easily led or just what? Opinions vary. But whatever we decide, they will still never rethink the insanity of recklessly gambling with their future on Wall Street.

[Porterhouse]

Do we have the ability to put up a poll?

I think we need to to vote on what we think colts will call the chemist because of this thread:

1. psycho
2. moron
3. republican
4. clown
5. fucking idiot
6. All of the above

That's two out of five; not bad for a first effort! LOL

[coltsfan1955]

I had thought that I was pretty clear that I called them "all of the aboive". I mean, even you, if you had ever had any backbone or integrity, would admit that this thread makes them look bad. But being the clown that you are, and the dishonest poster that you are proud to be, you won't see the ignorance in them linking an article showing that I was right and that they were wrong.

[zilcho88]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/07/05/union-bling-union-junkets-1969452526/?test=latestnews

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

I'm getting sick of Fox invariably abusing the same distortion. Someone makes a claim and presents a dozen statistics to support their claim. And Fox responds by stating, at least a dozen times, that it disagrees with the claim and then supports their disagreement with two (three on a good day) anecdotal stories not even related to the original claim. Are executives overly compensated? No, because unions are overly compensated. Is GDP growth not being adequately allocated to the working class? No, because look at those awesome hotels that unions own!

[coltsfan1955]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/07/05/union-bling-union-junkets-1969452526/?test=latestnews

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

I'm getting sick of Fox invariably abusing the same distortion. Someone makes a claim and presents a dozen statistics to support their claim. And Fox responds by stating, at least a dozen times, that it disagrees with the claim and then supports their disagreement with two (three on a good day) anecdotal stories not even related to the original claim. Are executives overly compensated? No, because unions are overly compensated. Is GDP growth not being adequately allocated to the working class? No, because look at those awesome hotels that unions own!

There are structural problems with the article and the board's physco republicans reaction to it. First off, we are investing members money into safe investments, and luxury hotels are as about as safe as an investment as you can make. There is always going to be rich people and they are always going to go to Ft Lauderdale. I'd have some concerns about hurricanes but whatever. It is a much safer investment than gambling on Wall Street.

The article is very stilted and using colorful language describing how nice this luxury hotel is. Well, isn't that the point? Luxury hotels are supposed to be nice. And the Priceline Negotiator shows how to book rooms at luxury hotels for less, right? Why we wouldn't we spend our money at our store?

And then we have the physcotic reaction from the clown show calling investing in safe real estate "union spending". Of course the republicans around here are very shallow and they never imagined that their article was so easily defeated. They were all giddy thinking that they had a "gotcha moment", so the clown show will just move onto another thread.

[NHPats2011]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/07/05/union-bling-union-junkets-1969452526/?test=latestnews

Guess in just WallStreet that goes wild.

I'm getting sick of Fox invariably abusing the same distortion. Someone makes a claim and presents a dozen statistics to support their claim. And Fox responds by stating, at least a dozen times, that it disagrees with the claim and then supports their disagreement with two (three on a good day) anecdotal stories not even related to the original claim. Are executives overly compensated? No, because unions are overly compensated. Is GDP growth not being adequately allocated to the working class? No, because look at those awesome hotels that unions own!

There are structural problems with the article and the board's physco republicans reaction to it. First off, we are investing members money into safe investments, and luxury hotels are as about as safe as an investment as you can make. There is always going to be rich people and they are always going to go to Ft Lauderdale. I'd have some concerns about hurricanes but whatever. It is a much safer investment than gambling on Wall Street.

The article is very stilted and using colorful language describing how nice this luxury hotel is. Well, isn't that the point? Luxury hotels are supposed to be nice. And the Priceline Negotiator shows how to book rooms at luxury hotels for less, right? Why we wouldn't we spend our money at our store?

And then we have the physcotic reaction from the clown show calling investing in safe real estate "union spending". Of course the republicans around here are very shallow and they never imagined that their article was so easily defeated. They were all giddy thinking that they had a "gotcha moment", so the clown show will just move onto another thread.

But aren't the people you hate the ones that frequent luxury hotels?

[coltsfan1955]

I don't particularly like RUBs but I'll sure enough sell them Harley Parts, as long as I get at least a 100% profit on my investment.

Really though, can you honestly think of a safer place to invest a hundred million dollars than building a luxury hotel in Ft Lauderdale? Not everyone can "let their money work for them", some one has to actually do something.

[coltsfan1955]

I just remembered that that hotel is where the Sons of Silence had their reunion. On the other hand not many of the .01% would use a hotel there, with the protections Florida has for homeowners all of them have a several million dollar mansion in South Florida. Another reasonably safe place to invest money.

[NHPats2011]

I don't particularly like RUBs but I'll sure enough sell them Harley Parts, as long as I get at least a 100% profit on my investment.

Really though, can you honestly think of a safer place to invest a hundred million dollars than building a luxury hotel in Ft Lauderdale? Not everyone can "let their money work for them", some one has to actually do something.

I actually believe real-estate is a food long-term investment. Over time the number of people will continue to increase but the amount of land will not. But it is not very liquid so I believe it should be used only as a long-term investment. The one exception I would make is one's primary residence. Live in it....invest I it and enjoy it.

[coltsfan1955]

I don't particularly like RUBs but I'll sure enough sell them Harley Parts, as long as I get at least a 100% profit on my investment.

Really though, can you honestly think of a safer place to invest a hundred million dollars than building a luxury hotel in Ft Lauderdale? Not everyone can "let their money work for them", some one has to actually do something.

I actually believe real-estate is a food long-term investment. Over time the number of people will continue to increase but the amount of land will not. But it is not very liquid so I believe it should be used only as a long-term investment. The one exception I would make is one's primary residence. Live in it....invest I it and enjoy it.

But that real estate is a long term investment that returns a profit every day. Good Grief, we are in this for a thousand years, not today's or this weeks trading cycle on Wall Street. A quadzillion isn't a made up word, it is a thousand trillions. That is how many trades are made on Wall Street every year.

[NHPats2011]

I don't particularly like RUBs but I'll sure enough sell them Harley Parts, as long as I get at least a 100% profit on my investment.

Really though, can you honestly think of a safer place to invest a hundred million dollars than building a luxury hotel in Ft Lauderdale? Not everyone can "let their money work for them", some one has to actually do something.

I actually believe real-estate is a food long-term investment. Over time the number of people will continue to increase but the amount of land will not. But it is not very liquid so I believe it should be used only as a long-term investment. The one exception I would make is one's primary residence. Live in it....invest I it and enjoy it.

But that real estate is a long term investment that returns a profit every day. Good Grief, we are in this for a thousand years, not today's or this weeks trading cycle on Wall Street. A quadzillion isn't a made up word, it is a thousand trillions. That is how many trades are made on Wall Street every year.

Not much has lost more value than real estate over the past 5 years. Especially in certain areas, it was over-valued, but it will be a while until it comes back. On the other hand, there are many stocks and even complete sectors that have grown substantially. This is why one should diversify.