DOW is down to 11,796.24

[RLLD 4,275]

Unless you can show anything to the contrary, every post of mine in this thread is 100% correct. I made no predictions one way or the other, simply stated facts as things unfolded.

 

But you keep thinking you accomplished some amazing feat if that makes mommy proud.

 

And the fact you think Srike's sale of his house helped bring on the recession is some funny shiat.

 

Is a rather adolescent attempt to avoid admitting that your intent with each post was to post facts in an effort to refute my assertions without making any of your own, while I keep calling the falling knife, it keeps hitting people such as yourself who prefer to pretend that the issue is merely temporary, part of a cycle or not as bad as it seems.

 

The fact that people such as strike, and perhaps you as well, refuse to acknowledge that the contributions of those who sold their homes for bullsh!t prices was part of this is more evidence of the lack of personal responsibility that was required for this all to transpire.

 

Everyone likes to pretend they are somehow the victim, the banks, the brokers, the buyers....but those who sold are not held accountable......bullsh!t.....

 

If you knowingly participate in a fraud and justify that participation because the potential for profit existed you are as pathetic as the rest of the participants. Profit does not justify misdeeds, its something the banks are only beginning to understand, and its something that every entity selling a product needs to get their mind around.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hey, you made the claim it was "funny" to look back over my posts in this thread, yet you can't show one of my posts that is not correct.

 

.....isn't this about the time you bring out "owned", or some other lame attempt to save face?

[RLLD 4,275]

I thought your point was all hell was gonna break loose in about a month.

 

C'mon, you can't be right all the time.

 

You decided to define my point for me, and even added in your own time line. I called a market crash, and it happened. I also called the nationalization of banking over a year ago, and we are edging ever closer to that as well

 

 

Subsequent to your original post, you posted the following on March 11 (post 33 if you want to refresh your memory):

We are now past next week, the week after that, and the next month. Seems your prediction is exactly opposite of reality.

 

Here you are "checking the thermostat" again, the same mistakes made by many inept individuals in the 1930's. Predicting what will come to pass far enough ahead of time allows the intelligent participant to both protect themselves and perhaps even find an advantage. Clearly, this is something you continued to miss.

 

 

Cool. We can relax until then. And here I thought all these guys were right predicting market crashes and mayhem.

 

We were correct, if you were paying attention all the signs were there over a year ago, it was rather easy to see it all coming to pass and to divest long before money was lost.

 

 

 

The only thing I have done in this thread is point out exactly how you have been wrong by showing the market has gone up, not down, since your OP. How is that an 'inane position'?

 

I would like to see examples of your "red herring, strawman, and argumentu ad logicam" charges.

 

Technically the market did fluxuate, before it crashed, how about that? More warning for you, but you cannot be bothered by such things as maret mechanics and market psychology can you?

 

 

[jerryskids 7,085]

Is a rather adolescent attempt to avoid admitting that your intent with each post was to post facts in an effort to refute my assertions without making any of your own, while I keep calling the falling knife, it keeps hitting people such as yourself who prefer to pretend that the issue is merely temporary, part of a cycle or not as bad as it seems.

 

The fact that people such as strike, and perhaps you as well, refuse to acknowledge that the contributions of those who sold their homes for bullsh!t prices was part of this is more evidence of the lack of personal responsibility that was required for this all to transpire.

 

Everyone likes to pretend they are somehow the victim, the banks, the brokers, the buyers....but those who sold are not held accountable......bullsh!t.....

 

If you knowingly participate in a fraud and justify that participation because the potential for profit existed you are as pathetic as the rest of the participants. Profit does not justify misdeeds, its something the banks are only beginning to understand, and its something that every entity selling a product needs to get their mind around.

Seriously RLLD, this schtick of blaming the sellers became old... well, the first day you posted it. We, the common people, buy and sell investments in the context of the market that exists. The government with its policies, and (to a lesser extent IMO) the banks with their actions to make money given said policies, are 99.99999999% responsible. If you want to associate some gnat's hair amount of the culpability to the sellers, and that helps you to sleep better at night with that position, fine, whatever floats your boat. But to expect a common house seller to say "hey, I've been offered $500K, but I'm only going to sell it for $400K," is assinine.

[RLLD 4,275]

Seriously RLLD, this schtick of blaming the sellers became old... well, the first day you posted it. We, the common people, buy and sell investments in the context of the market that exists. The government with its policies, and (to a lesser extent IMO) the banks with their actions to make money given said policies, are 99.99999999% responsible. If you want to associate some gnat's hair amount of the culpability to the sellers, and that helps you to sleep better at night with that position, fine, whatever floats your boat. But to expect a common house seller to say "hey, I've been offered $500K, but I'm only going to sell it for $400K," is assinine.

 

 

Seriously, the bankers were the biggest violators in this, then the buyers who, but that I still refuse to give the sellers a free pass certainly strikes a nerve to this day.

 

So, seriously, if you were involved in this fraud in ANY WAY, you seriously participated in the Ponzi scheme that will bring about the end of America as THE economic power in this world and also destroy our standard of living. Excuse me if I seem unwilling to just "let it go".....

[Cdub100 3,995]

Is a rather adolescent attempt to avoid admitting that your intent with each post was to post facts in an effort to refute my assertions without making any of your own, while I keep calling the falling knife, it keeps hitting people such as yourself who prefer to pretend that the issue is merely temporary, part of a cycle or not as bad as it seems.

 

The fact that people such as strike, and perhaps you as well, refuse to acknowledge that the contributions of those who sold their homes for bullsh!t prices was part of this is more evidence of the lack of personal responsibility that was required for this all to transpire.

 

Everyone likes to pretend they are somehow the victim, the banks, the brokers, the buyers....but those who sold are not held accountable......bullsh!t.....

 

If you knowingly participate in a fraud and justify that participation because the potential for profit existed you are as pathetic as the rest of the participants. Profit does not justify misdeeds, its something the banks are only beginning to understand, and its something that every entity selling a product needs to get their mind around.

 

Just stop, because you sound like a G.D. retard. People sold their home for what people were willing to pay. No more no less.

[Cdub100 3,995]

Seriously RLLD, this schtick of blaming the sellers became old... well, the first day you posted it. We, the common people, buy and sell investments in the context of the market that exists. The government with its policies, and (to a lesser extent IMO) the banks with their actions to make money given said policies, are 99.99999999% responsible. If you want to associate some gnat's hair amount of the culpability to the sellers, and that helps you to sleep better at night with that position, fine, whatever floats your boat. But to expect a common house seller to say "hey, I've been offered $500K, but I'm only going to sell it for $400K," is assinine.

 

If he want's to put that .000000001% blame on someone put it on the buyers. THEY were the ones paying inflated prices.

[RLLD 4,275]

Just stop, because you sound like a G.D. retard. People sold their home for what people were willing to pay. No more no less.

 

Not a chance.

 

People sold their homes for way more than they could possibly be worth to people too stupid to understand this, and also that they could not afford the completely bullsh!t price. All the while the banks happily allowed it to transpire.

 

All this has led us to where we are now, and where will will soon be. Will I stop, not a motherfocking chance in hell. The aforementioned mother fockers should all be skinned alive for what they have done to us, I would like to watch the life leave all of their eyes. They have focked us......

[jerryskids 7,085]

Not a chance.

 

People sold their homes for way more than they could possibly be worth to people too stupid to understand this, and also that they could not afford the completely bullsh!t price. All the while the banks happily allowed it to transpire.

 

All this has led us to where we are now, and where will will soon be. Will I stop, not a motherfocking chance in hell. The aforementioned mother fockers should all be skinned alive for what they have done to us, I would like to watch the life leave all of their eyes. They have focked us......

Why do you think that the sellers were so much "smarter" and malevolent than the buyers. A high percentage of the sellers were also buyers. Seriously, you are wack with your position here.

[Cdub100 3,995]

Not a chance.

 

People sold their homes for way more than they could possibly be worth to people too stupid to understand this, and also that they could not afford the completely bullsh!t price. All the while the banks happily allowed it to transpire.

 

All this has led us to where we are now, and where will will soon be. Will I stop, not a motherfocking chance in hell. The aforementioned mother fockers should all be skinned alive for what they have done to us, I would like to watch the life leave all of their eyes. They have focked us......

 

Sellers have no idea if the buyer can afford the house. That's the responsibility of the buyer and it's the banks job to make sure they don't lose on their investment into the buyer.

 

I mean I don't want to get into a name calling pissing match, but you can't be serious?

[RLLD 4,275]

Sellers have no idea if the buyer can afford the house. That's the responsibility of the buyer and it's the banks job to make sure they don't lose on their investment into the buyer.

 

I mean I don't want to get into a name calling pissing match, but you can't be serious?

 

I am serious that a person who bought an asset one year, and attempts to sell that asset the next year for three or four times their original investment should question the underlying context. Its not the responsibility of the seller to question the ability of the buyer to afford that asset, nor did I ever suggest this.

 

I am simply not allowing that sellers are somehow exempt in all this.

 

The notion that because profit CAN be derived that an entity should pursue said profit without an adherence to ethical operation does not work. If that were true then we could arrive at a place where assets were purchased for more than they were truly worth, creating at the very least a collapse in that market if not an outright economic failure across the board....hold the phone....

 

You see, to ignore the full spectre of the failure is to allow people who richly deserve pain to get away with none, and to repeat the mistake.

 

The banks should have stopped all this, but were too greedy to do so, and they are 80% at fault. The buyers should have not been nearly so stupid as to take on something they could not afford at this level, they are 15% at fault, and the sellers should focking understand that as a participant in the markets they have an obligation that does not end at the word "profit".

 

Profit is not an excuse for behaving badly or criminally, or stupidly.

[RLLD 4,275]

Why do you think that the sellers were so much "smarter" and malevolent than the buyers. A high percentage of the sellers were also buyers. Seriously, you are wack with your position here.

 

Never said that, in fact have stated just the opposite, and will now state......ONCE MORE.....ONCE AGAIN......bannnnnkeerrrrrssss......were 80% of the problem..........buuuuyyeerrrsssss were 15% of the problem........selllllleerrrrsssss were 5% of the problem.

 

ONCE AGAIN,.......just not giving.....the sellers......a freebee on this.........

[Cdub100 3,995]

I am serious that a person who bought an asset one year, and attempts to sell that asset the next year for three or four times their original investment should question the underlying context. Its not the responsibility of the seller to question the ability of the buyer to afford that asset, nor did I ever suggest this.

 

I am simply not allowing that sellers are somehow exempt in all this.

 

The notion that because profit CAN be derived that an entity should pursue said profit without an adherence to ethical operation does not work. If that were true then we could arrive at a place where assets were purchased for more than they were truly worth, creating at the very least a collapse in that market if not an outright economic failure across the board....hold the phone....

 

You see, to ignore the full spectre of the failure is to allow people who richly deserve pain to get away with none, and to repeat the mistake.

 

The banks should have stopped all this, but were too greedy to do so, and they are 80% at fault. The buyers should have not been nearly so stupid as to take on something they could not afford at this level, they are 15% at fault, and the sellers should focking understand that as a participant in the markets they have an obligation that does not end at the word "profit".

 

Profit is not an excuse for behaving badly or criminally, or stupidly.

 

Are you saying it's criminal to sell your house for what someone is willing to pay? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

[Me_2006 14]

Why would you sell something for less than you can get? Isn't that the point of selling something?

[jerryskids 7,085]

Are you saying it's criminal to sell your house for what someone is willing to pay? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

That is exactly what he is saying. It is a broken record and a useless conversation with him at this point.

 

Hey RLLD, I'm in sales. It is my job to communicate the value of my products, and in the end to maximize their perceived value so that they will buy it at a price which maximizes my company's profit. I don't lie ever during this process. Am I, and all people in solution sales, evil?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You decided to define my point for me, and even added in your own time line. I called a market crash, and it happened. I also called the nationalization of banking over a year ago, and we are edging ever closer to that as well

Here you are "checking the thermostat" again, the same mistakes made by many inept individuals in the 1930's. Predicting what will come to pass far enough ahead of time allows the intelligent participant to both protect themselves and perhaps even find an advantage. Clearly, this is something you continued to miss.

We were correct, if you were paying attention all the signs were there over a year ago, it was rather easy to see it all coming to pass and to divest long before money was lost.

Technically the market did fluxuate, before it crashed, how about that? More warning for you, but you cannot be bothered by such things as maret mechanics and market psychology can you?

 

Ray, I will give you a for combing thru the 300+ posts to bring this steaming pile of tooting your own horn.

 

Nice job.

 

But if you recall, I sent you off to bring a post of mine where I was wrong.

 

Back to the drawing bored for you, Ray.

 

[RLLD 4,275]

Ray, I will give you a for combing thru the 300+ posts to bring this steaming pile of tooting your own horn.

 

Nice job.

 

But if you recall, I sent you off to bring a post of mine where I was wrong.

 

Back to the drawing bored for you, Ray.

 

 

I am rather shocked that this thing got THIS long and keeps getting bumped. What started as a goof on Gutter turned into something else entirely.

 

The good news is that being right about the drop of the stock markets means I was right about a host of other things, so the moves I made will come back to me positively, but the bad news is that the host of other things now coming to fruition looks very bad for America.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I am rather shocked that this thing got THIS long and keeps getting bumped. What started as a goof on Gutter turned into something else entirely.

 

The good news is that being right about the drop of the stock markets means I was right about a host of other things, so the moves I made will come back to me positively, but the bad news is that the host of other things now coming to fruition looks very bad for America.

 

You sure are good at blowing your own horn.............and not being able to back up your claims about my posts in this thread.

[Big_Pete 0]

does it really matter if everyone agrees with what RLLD is saying or whether they agree with RC/JK/who knows? The fact is that everything RLLD said was going to happen, happened, and is still happening. Regardless of whether people agree on who to "blame" is irrelevant, as what has happened is in the past. It's up to the "powers that be" to recognize what focked it up and put measures in place to never let it happen again. This would be the Banks to not lend to people who can't afford the houses, this will also be the banks/buyers/sellers trying not to squeeze every last drop of oil out of the piece of shale they have. It's a combination of things that got us here, and nobody is completely "faultless".

I can't blame anyone for selling their house for what they were offered. But I see where RLLD is coming from. Common sense by all parties involved in the housing crisis would show that the bottom would fall off, but everyone turned a blind eye as long as they "got theirs"....

anyways, can we keep this about the DJIA sh1tting the bed, and less poo flinging from everyone?

[jerryskids 7,085]

does it really matter if everyone agrees with what RLLD is saying or whether they agree with RC/JK/who knows? The fact is that everything RLLD said was going to happen, happened, and is still happening. Regardless of whether people agree on who to "blame" is irrelevant, as what has happened is in the past. It's up to the "powers that be" to recognize what focked it up and put measures in place to never let it happen again. This would be the Banks to not lend to people who can't afford the houses, this will also be the banks/buyers/sellers trying not to squeeze every last drop of oil out of the piece of shale they have. It's a combination of things that got us here, and nobody is completely "faultless".

I can't blame anyone for selling their house for what they were offered. But I see where RLLD is coming from. Common sense by all parties involved in the housing crisis would show that the bottom would fall off, but everyone turned a blind eye as long as they "got theirs"....

anyways, can we keep this about the DJIA sh1tting the bed, and less poo flinging from everyone?

That's a steaming pile of dung. It is unamerican to sell something for less than you can get for it.

[Big_Pete 0]

I can't blame anyone for selling their house for what they were offered. But I see where RLLD is coming from.

 

 

That's a steaming pile of dung. It is unamerican to sell something for less than you can get for it.

Hense why I said what I said... I bolded it for you lol

[kutulu 1,703]

The whole focking thing is a house of cards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that it's over, but the market is extremely oversold right now. March/April may bring a bear market rally, but don't confuse it with a recovery if it does take place.

[mighty_thor 115]

I'm with Jerry's kid on the sellers as guilty. Thats BS. I sold my condo in 2004 and bought a new house 2004. So, i was suppose to sell my comdo at below what people were willing to pay? And then buy at house at an inflated value? Of course not. And if I sell and buy a house this year then i may take a hit on the sale but i'll get a bargain on the buying.

 

Who do we blame?

 

1. The banks who saw the values rising and stupidly thought they would rise forever so they had no problems selling mortgages to people who could not afford them.

2. People who were buying properties they could not afford. Either because they were too stupid or because they were speculators.

3. Wall street firms that bought and sold derivatives and swaps, gambling that the housing market would rise forever.

4. The government for not seeing what was happening and the risk involved. They should have established more regulations on things such as credit default swaps.

 

Here is an informative piece by 60 minutes on credit default swaps and what went wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n

[nobody 2,883]

Keep dreaming. Who the hell are you, Bernie Madoff Jr?

 

The overall market is down about 50% since you started a 401k but you are up 36%. You may want to send your resume to Wall Street as you are the only one with 'gains' like that. (gains) in quotes because you are bullshit.

 

 

Well, you get a 100% gain right away when your employer matches the funds. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

By the way, you think your pension funds are sitting in a money market? They're invested in the stock market too.

[KSB2424 3,173]

Well, you get a 100% gain right away when your employer matches the funds. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

This guy continues to amaze me. He keeps bringing up how the markets are doing bad. However fails to understand that in most 401(k)'s your employer matches up to a certain percent. That is free money. A certain 100% return on investment. Also, the money is not taxed which decreases your tax burden which is another monetary bonus.

 

I will just spell it out for him in a made up scenario:

 

You put 10% of your salary in your 401k and that equaled 2000.00

Your company matches up to 5% so they put in $1000.00

Your well diversified portfolio lost 30% in 2008

 

$3000.00*.3 = $900

$3000.00 - $900 (in losses) = $2,100.00

 

So even with a negative 30% return on investment you still made a hundred bucks plus did not pay any taxes on that $2000.00 that you invested. If you did not invest it you would have paid upwards of 500 dollars in taxes on that money.

[The Moz 71]

Several economist that i actually have some respect for have said things will bottom out in 2009 and 2010 will begin a SLOW recovery -- how far that 2009 bottom goes - who knows. I only hope we can keep heads above 7000.

[RLLD 4,275]

That's a steaming pile of dung. It is unamerican to sell something for less than you can get for it.

 

Of course, who could be harmed by unmitigated greed? Just look around....

 

People in this nation have become despicable pieces of sh!t.....

[DuckStupid 40]

Of course, who could be harmed by unmitigated greed? Just look around....

 

People in this nation have become despicable pieces of sh!t.....

 

Hey look, a despicable piece of sh!t.

[Me_2006 14]

Of course, who could be harmed by unmitigated greed? Just look around....

 

People in this nation have become despicable pieces of sh!t.....

If someone will give you a billion dollars for something, it's really not your place to question whether or not they can afford that amount. That's their responsibility.

[LOD01 199]

Well, you get a 100% gain right away when your employer matches the funds. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

By the way, you think your pension funds are sitting in a money market? They're invested in the stock market too.

 

YOU are the one who has no clue what they are talking about. Yes, my $ is safe. Not the least concerned. Regardless of the market, I'll get paid...yearly with COL raises.

 

Subtract out the 100% (I used to get that when I worked in the private sector so I know EXACTLY what you are saying) and you find yourself at a loss. You can't say you are up 35% becasue they are matching. That's ###### retarded.

 

We are now at 11 years (1997 levels) of no gains in the market.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Subtract out the 100% (I used to get that when I worked in the private sector so I know EXACTLY what you are saying) and you find yourself at a loss. You can't say you are up 35% becasue they are matching. That's ###### retarded.

 

:Ball sits on tee:

[KSB2424 3,173]

You can't say you are up 35% becasue they are matching.

Why not? If I put in X amount into a 401k and get out Y over a time period then that is what I either made or lost. In a 401k the company match is part of that equation. That is the whole reason to do a 401k. That and the fact it is tax deferred.

 

You can't pick and choose factors in an investment tool that you want and dismiss other factors.

[LOD01 199]

 

This guy continues to amaze me. He keeps bringing up how the markets are doing bad. However fails to understand that in most 401(k)'s your employer matches up to a certain percent. That is free money. A certain 100% return on investment. Also, the money is not taxed which decreases your tax burden which is another monetary bonus.

 

I will just spell it out for him in a made up scenario:

 

You put 10% of your salary in your 401k and that equaled 2000.00

Your company matches up to 5% so they put in $1000.00

Your well diversified portfolio lost 30% in 2008

 

$3000.00*.3 = $900

$3000.00 - $900 (in losses) = $2,100.00

 

So even with a negative 30% return on investment you still made a hundred bucks plus did not pay any taxes on that $2000.00 that you invested. If you did not invest it you would have paid upwards of 500 dollars in taxes on that money.

 

Re-read that joke of a statement. If the market is going down, it's NOT A 100% gain. I know it's free money but what I am telling you is that you are working for the rest of your breathing life if your retirement is a 401k.

 

Hey, donk, you don't have to spell it out. I used to have one but I cashed it in when I went to a gov't job. Best move I ever made. Otherwise it was dead money..AT BEST.

[KSB2424 3,173]

Re-read that joke of a statement. If the market is going down, it's NOT A 100% gain. I know it's free money but what I am telling you is that you are working for the rest of your breathing life if your retirement is a 401k.

 

Hey, donk, you don't have to spell it out. I used to have one but I cashed it in when I went to a gov't job. Best move I ever made. Otherwise it was dead money..AT BEST.

Do you lack reading comprehesion? The part you bolded is saying that whatever portion your company matches (in this scenario 5%) the company gives you that money. That portion is a 100% gain. I never said the whole portfolio was a 100% return.

 

Surely you cannot be this stupid.

 

In this scenario when you factor in ALL factors the persons return on investment was 5%. He put in 2000 and made $100.00. So even though his portfolio was down 30% he still netted a positive gain. What is so hard to understand?

[jerryskids 7,085]

Of course, who could be harmed by unmitigated greed? Just look around....

 

People in this nation have become despicable pieces of sh!t.....

Really? So the concept of a person wanting to sell their house, and retaining the services of a real estate agent, and that agent performing a comp analysis, who then works with sellers to clean/declutter/etc. to maximize the attractiveness of the house, and then advertises the house in a way to maximize its attractiveness, then gets offers, and provides higher counteroffers... this is a recent development?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The DOW at 11,796..................Ahhhhhh, the goold ol' days under Bush.

 

 

[LOD01 199]

Do you lack reading comprehesion? The part you bolded is saying that whatever portion your company matches (in this scenario 5%) the company gives you that money. That portion is a 100% gain. I never said the whole portfolio was a 100% return.

 

Surely you cannot be this stupid.

 

In this scenario when you factor in ALL factors the persons return on investment was 5%. He put in 2000 and made $100.00. So even though his portfolio was down 30% he still netted a positive gain. What is so hard to understand?

 

 

Classic!!!!!!! 'hey everybody, my 401k is fine, in a flat market, my portion is up 100%' 'Even in a down market, I am making money!!!!' You are getting matching funds tard. That is all.

 

Hey jackass. Answer this question: Based on his fabulous 35% (fictitious) gain, is his investment making enough to retire.

 

I had no idea anyone could be as stupid as the two of you when it comes to investing.

[KSB2424 3,173]

Let us compare/contrast a 401k with your gov't retirement investment account. So we can do this could you please answer the following questions:

 

1. In your current retirement fund is the money tax deferred. Meaning is it taken out of your paycheck BEFORE it is subject to Federal, State, and Local taxes?

 

2. In your current retirement fund does anyone match the monies you put in?

 

3. What is your "fixed" return rate?

 

All you need to do is answer the questions. Your failure to answer the questions will be a sign that you are fishing and waving the white flag.

[LOD01 199]

Let us compare contrast a 401k with your gov't retirement investment. So we can do this could you please answer the following questions:

 

1. In your current retirement fund is the money tax deferred. Meaning is it taken out of your paycheck BEFORE it is subject to Federal, State, and Local taxes?

 

2. In your current retirement fund does anyone match the monies you put in?

 

3. What is your "fixed" return rate?

 

All you need to do is answer the questions. TIA

 

Sure. The amount I get yearly is based on the # of years worked times the average of my 5 highest gross income years times 1.6%. It has NOTHING to do with what the market is doing. It's a guaranteed benefit. If we need $ to fund it we will raise your taxes...but we don't have to. I did my research years ago. I realized that 'eating from the trough' was the way to retirement. Next time you hear that phrase, you will know what it means.

 

Will I be retiring. Yes.

 

Oh yeah, a couple of little bonuses you have no idea exist.

 

1. ALL of my unused sick time gets converted into $ at retirement. 50 cents on the dollar. You don't get that.

 

2. DROP. I'll let you look up what that is. Quite the little bonus.

 

So when you run you calculations, understand that I will be receiveing DROP for 5 years and a lump sum of cash for sick time.

[Strike 6,019]

Really? So the concept of a person wanting to sell their house, and retaining the services of a real estate agent, and that agent performing a comp analysis, who then works with sellers to clean/declutter/etc. to maximize the attractiveness of the house, and then advertises the house in a way to maximize its attractiveness, then gets offers, and provides higher counteroffers... this is a recent development?

 

We've been trying to get him to quit this stupid line of reasoning for 3 years. You think you're going to get anywhere with him NOW????