Tonight's Presidential Debate

[ZNP]

LOL......no I did not feel like doing the math for that so I just did a straight total return just to point out that Dan did in fact do better under Trump.

In either case though both returns have beat inflation.

Yes, but if we use gold as the standard measure of value the S&P 500 has beat inflation by 9% over 4 years, so right around 2% better per year.

You might think that is "better" but you haven't taken everything into account. Assume for example You buy on the day Biden takes office (or Trump) and then you sell on the day he leaves office (either one). They are going to charge you capital gains tax, not on the 9% which is true, but they'll claim it was 65% because they do not take inflation into account. So yes, you beat inflation by about 9% but that will be your tax bill. After 4 years you have 0 net gain.

 

[PennEd]

What do "they" do to destroy the family exactly??

They unequivocally tell women they will get MORE welfare through MANY different state and federal programs that have children, AS LONG AS THE FATHER IS NOT IN THE HOME!!


Women instinctively want to be taken care of. It’s part of their wiring from the Lord. Whether they recognize this or not, it is absolutely true.

That’s not a good or bad thing. It’s how we’re designed. Men instinctively want to care for women.

If women aren’t getting cared for by a husband, they will look elsewhere. Democrats know this.
So government takes the place of a man taking care of them.

Hence, democrats try like Satan to break up families. The voting record of single women vs married women conclusively prove this.

And yes I know it doesn’t apply either way to every single woman. But percentage wise it’s conclusive.

So single women voting democrat is actually helping Satan in his desire to destroy God’s family make up.

 

[stilllearning]

Thanks for posting that, but honestly it's a terrible analysis because it doesn't control for inflation at all, and he included the rather large gains that occurred after Trump lost in 2020 (but before Biden was sworn in).

Not at all. I just said I did not do the math for inflation is all. That does not mean that the financial publication that wrote the article did not do so. So my answer was no I did not. Seeing that they did list annually for the returns that is going to be average which means they would have had to adjust for gains and loses in all years to arrive at the annual figure for a 4 year period of time.

 

[PennEd]

I watched the Rumble vid. She said nothing about immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Let’s see if this guy has the integrity to admit he was wrong:

https://x.com/__Pfeiffer/status/1833294781125939574

 

[stilllearning]

Yes, but if we use gold as the standard measure of value the S&P 500 has beat inflation by 9% over 4 years, so right around 2% better per year.

You might think that is "better" but you haven't taken everything into account. Assume for example You buy on the day Biden takes office (or Trump) and then you sell on the day he leaves office (either one). They are going to charge you capital gains tax, not on the 9% which is true, but they'll claim it was 65% because they do not take inflation into account. So yes, you beat inflation by about 9% but that will be your tax bill. After 4 years you have 0 net gain.

The figures cover a 4 year period of time so they did make adjustments on each period to be able to arrive at an annualized return for a 4 year period.

 

[stilllearning]

Yes, but if we use gold as the standard measure of value the S&P 500 has beat inflation by 9% over 4 years, so right around 2% better per year.

You might think that is "better" but you haven't taken everything into account. Assume for example You buy on the day Biden takes office (or Trump) and then you sell on the day he leaves office (either one). They are going to charge you capital gains tax, not on the 9% which is true, but they'll claim it was 65% because they do not take inflation into account. So yes, you beat inflation by about 9% but that will be your tax bill. After 4 years you have 0 net gain.

Capital gains is only going to be paid when you sell and of course have a capital gain. If we are talking taxes here they can get really complicated fast on investments. For example I will invest in some vehicles that have a built-in NAV erosion. So if I buy such a vehicle at 20 and it erodes to 10 over 20 years on paper I would show a loss but that is not the actually case as my NAV erosion is going to be from return of capital or ROC.

As now with ROC I may have only paid 8 per share so even though the NAV has eroded to 10 and my initial buy in was 20 So I have in fact gained 2 dollars which will be my capital gains. So capital gains and taxes will be individual to each investment type used and it's particular tax situation.

 

[ZNP]

The figures cover a 4 year period of time so they did make adjustments on each period to be able to arrive at an annualized return for a 4 year period.

That is not my point. The point is that when you buy an investment you cannot claim you have a return until you sell it. Once you sell it you have to also pay tax. People tend to forget that. I graphed the S&P 500 against Gold. It did about 9% better than gold cumulative over 4 years. You said that you would have had a 53% gain over 4 years with Biden. OK, but you have to pay capital gains tax on that 53% when you sell but that does not take into account inflation. I noted the difference between the performance of the S&P 500 and Gold over the 4 years is about 9%. So if you paid capital gains tax on a 53% gain it would come very close to that 9% you actually beat inflation by. That means after you paid tax you would not have any gain at all, 0.

 

[ZNP]

Capital gains is only going to be paid when you sell and of course have a capital gain. If we are talking taxes here they can get really complicated fast on investments. For example I will invest in some vehicles that have a built-in NAV erosion. So if I buy such a vehicle at 20 and it erodes to 10 over 20 years on paper I would show a loss but that is not the actually case as my NAV erosion is going to be from return of capital or ROC.

As now with ROC I may have only paid 8 per share so even though the NAV has eroded to 10 and my initial buy in was 20 So I have in fact gained 2 dollars which will be my capital gains. So capital gains and taxes will be individual to each investment type used and it's particular tax situation.

Again if you don't sell any gain is purely hypothetical. The market has been known to drop by 20% in a single day.

When calculating the return you must take into account fees and taxes. When I first started investing I bought a call option on Amazon.com. I was betting the stock was going up and it did go up and I scored on my option. The problem was I didn't take into account the fees so when it was all said and done I basically broke even.

 

[stilllearning]

That is not my point. The point is that when you buy an investment you cannot claim you have a return until you sell it. Once you sell it you have to also pay tax. People tend to forget that. I graphed the S&P 500 against Gold. It did about 9% better than gold cumulative over 4 years. You said that you would have had a 53% gain over 4 years with Biden. OK, but you have to pay capital gains tax on that 53% when you sell but that does not take into account inflation. I noted the difference between the performance of the S&P 500 and Gold over the 4 years is about 9%. So if you paid capital gains tax on a 53% gain it would come very close to that 9% you actually beat inflation by. That means after you paid tax you would not have any gain at all, 0.

They are just looking at periods of time is all. Personally I agree with you for an individual to know what there return was they will have to sell. However, that does not have a bearing if we just want to compare two different periods of time and the returns in the comparison.

 

[ZNP]

They are just looking at periods of time is all. Personally I agree with you for an individual to know what there return was they will have to sell. However, that does not have a bearing if we just want to compare two different periods of time and the returns in the comparison.

Of course they are, but they know about inflation and they know about capital gains tax, Kiplinger's knows this so let's not make excuses for them. Which sounds better 53% return over 4 years or 0% return? If they told people the truth who would invest and that would be bad for Kiplinger's.

 

[stilllearning]

Again if you don't sell any gain is purely hypothetical. The market has been known to drop by 20% in a single day.

When calculating the return you must take into account fees and taxes. When I first started investing I bought a call option on Amazon.com. I was betting the stock was going up and it did go up and I scored on my option. The problem was I didn't take into account the fees so when it was all said and done I basically broke even.

Yeah I agree your actual return is going to be when you sell. Who was your broker? Or what was the contract cost when you did it? Nowadays that is one thing I m glad about is how much fees have come down. When I started I would pay like around $38 and that was a discount broker. Now I pay no commission. Well on equities of course.

 

[ZNP]

Yeah I agree your actual return is going to be when you sell. Who was your broker? Or what was the contract cost when you did it? Nowadays that is one thing I m glad about is how much fees have come down. When I started I would pay like around $38 and that was a discount broker. Now I pay no commission. Well on equities of course.

I was a stock broker for a number of years.

 

[stilllearning]

I was a stock broker for a number of years.

With one of the big ones or a private firm?

 

[ZNP]

With one of the big ones or a private firm?

Yes and Yes, I was on Wall Street.

 

[stilllearning]

Yes and Yes, I was on Wall Street.

Way cool less stress in your life these days I would assume.

 

[ZNP]

"...other IMMIGRANTS that make up our country..." Seriously? Earlier immigrants came in LEGALLY, but there Haitians came in ILLEGALLY. So why are you lying right off the bat? Comparing lawful citizens with foreign illegal invaders?

As to the focus on Haitians there are a number of reasons:

(1) their numbers in Springfield are almost equal to the previous population of lawful citizens (whether immigrants or not). That has overwhelmed the systems. And who is paying for their free ride?;

(2) there is now overwhelming evidence, even from police (and contrary to the Lying Leftist media) that they have been illegally catching cats, dogs, pigs, ducks, and geese and eating them with impunity (knowing that they will not be deported or prosecuted);

3) other Haitians and Jamaicans have confirmed that that these Haitians not only consider cat meat a delicacy, but use it for voodoo rituals. These people are also cannibals, and pretty soon they could start killing people and eating them;

(4) they have been unlawfully issued with driver's licenses when they cannot even read the road and street signs. As a result they have caused car crashes and property damage. They killed an 11 year old boy and caused the injury of many kids because of reckless driving. They have also been molesting people;

(5) Landlords in Springfield are illegally evicting law-abiding tenants and replacing them with Haitians (no doubt getting paid off huge sums for this criminality)

Are all these reasons good enough for you?

Springfield, Ohio, Haitian Crisis EXPOSED by Blaze Media Journalist

 

[ZNP]

Influx of wild-driving Haitian migrants turning streets of Springfield, Ohio, into combat zone

 

[ZNP]

Small Ohio city flooded by Haitian migrants

 

[JayBird]

Well @ZNP you've certainly shown who you are.

All of this racist fear mongering continues to have very real consequences. Today two Springfield elementary schools had to be evacuated and a middle school was forced to close, all due to more bomb threats (in addition to the ones from yesterday).

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/bomb-...buildings-springfield-ohio/story?id=113619803

The mayor said there's a lot of fear in Springfield in the wake of the threats.​

​

"This is a very concerning time for our citizens, and frankly, a lot of people are tired of just, you know, the things that have been spread about our community that are just negative and not true. We need help, not hate," Rue told ABC News on Friday.​

​

The mayor said he believes these threats are directly connected to the baseless rumors spread online in the wake of viral social media posts claiming Haitian migrants were abducting people's pets in Springfield order to eat them. The rumors were amplified by right-wing politicians, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. JD Vance.​

​

And sadly as this forum shows, it's not just the Trump campaign that's spreading the hate, it's Christians as well (although I see absolutely no Christ-like love in any of their posts).

I hope at least some here will ask themselves if this is how Christ wants us to be. Scripture is abundantly clear about how we are to treat the stranger, our neighbor, and the least among us. When Jesus said that how you treat the least among you is how you treat Him, He wasn't kidding.

 

[Cameron143]

Well @ZNP you've certainly shown who you are.

All of this racist fear mongering continues to have very real consequences. Today two Springfield elementary schools had to be evacuated and a middle school was forced to close, all due to more bomb threats (in addition to the ones from yesterday).

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/bomb-...buildings-springfield-ohio/story?id=113619803

The mayor said there's a lot of fear in Springfield in the wake of the threats.​

​

"This is a very concerning time for our citizens, and frankly, a lot of people are tired of just, you know, the things that have been spread about our community that are just negative and not true. We need help, not hate," Rue told ABC News on Friday.​

​

The mayor said he believes these threats are directly connected to the baseless rumors spread online in the wake of viral social media posts claiming Haitian migrants were abducting people's pets in Springfield order to eat them. The rumors were amplified by right-wing politicians, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. JD Vance.​

​

And sadly as this forum shows, it's not just the Trump campaign that's spreading the hate, it's Christians as well (although I see absolutely no Christ-like love in any of their posts).

I hope at least some here will ask themselves if this is how Christ wants us to be. Scripture is abundantly clear about how we are to treat the stranger, our neighbor, and the least among us. When Jesus said that how you treat the least among you is how you treat Him, He wasn't kidding.

You are the only racist here. Everyone else is upset over the consequences of illegal immigration or the effects of legal immigration that places too many people into small communities. You are the only one who has brought in race.