Raiders22

BOL tonight 

@Resabiado

 Lo escribiré todo. La principal diferencia es que divido la mitad de una apuesta en Minnesota en la línea de dinero y la mitad de una apuesta en Minnesota en la línea de disco. El resto son todas jugadas de una unidad.

1 unit play on CAROLINA -1 +110 Necesitan ganar por más de un gol

1 unit play on CAROLINA Team Total O3 -134 El equipo tiene que marcar más de tantos goles

1 unit on WASHINGTON -2 -112 Necesitan ganar por más de dos goles

.5 unit on MINNESOTA +114 Solo necesito ganar

.5u MINNESOTA -1.5 +286 Necesitan ganar por más de dos goles

MINN Team Total  O2.5 -122  El equipo tiene que marcar más de tantos goles

buena suerte

425-392   +3038

CAR -1 +110

CAR TT O3 -134

WAS -2 -112

.5u MN +114

.5u MN -1.5 +286

MN TT O2.5 -122

@SarasotaSlim

 Watch the video clip of Pelosi from 1996 talking about it.  
Then ask what changed.  She points the issue out back then.  But now that someone is trying to fix it, where is the support for fixing it. 

@joe pockets

I think you are right.  I hope not for everyone’s sakes.  But hard to see otherwise. 

But I think Trump is not really that concerned about the market.  I think he realizes there would be some overreaction from it while things take shape with the trade.  Some are countering, some are canceling, and some are going to negotiate.  
It will be interesting to see if Trump gets as much as he wants from most of them.  
But the market never ever likes uncertainty.  

I really think more of this is coming from Lutnick than people think. I get that a Trump has talked about this since the ‘80s, or whenever.  But I think now he has someone in his ear that he feels is on the same page and that he trusts.  

CLB +1.5 -181

ANA +1.5 -182

BOL tonight 

@wallstreetcappers

 I was not condescending.  You always choose to take it that way.  I just try to keep you focused on the topic.  
That is why I usually break it up and reply separately to each of your points.  Instead of just answering you post a convoluted post that really does not address what I am interested in reading your stance or view on.  

@wallstreetcappers

 No sir.  Not a dead end question.  
I get you can’t stand Musk.  
So, would you rather Congress try?  

I did not see if you even admitted there was a problem?  Did I miss that answer?

I did not see if you answered if you agreed with what previous presidents had tried to do.  Did I miss that answer?

@wallstreetcappers

Yessir.  Maybe time to ease back in and if it drops even more DCA back in. 

I always advocate for folks not to try to time it but ride it out.  But if you are worried about something like what is going on it is nice to have a solid plan in place.   

@Rush51

Yessir. That is partly true.

But there are several other factors that lead up to that negative GDP that would propose that we are already in a recession.

A lot of times recessions will be more clearly seen in hindsight or well into the midst of it.

For example, retail sales falling off, unemployment rising, income contracting, or a drop in manufacturing.  These can be some of the leading indicators.

Then those numbers would catch up and be reflected in the GDP growth numbers.

Of course, all economists and financial folks (like investors) will not agree on when it started, ended, or what its worst point was.  This is especially true for the average citizen.  Because different things affect different folks at different times and to a different degree.

That is the most popular definition.  But I would not call it the ‘classical one’.  For example, The NBER is the one that sets the ‘official’ entry and exit dates for them.  Their definition is a bit more nuanced.  They simply say it a a period over a few months where there is a significant decline in economic activity.  But they couch it by saying it is normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production and sales.   

That is why I say at this time it is difficult to say for sure because of the various factors. But it would not be surprising to see that we are in one or about to be in one.

@wallstreetcappers

I am not poor at making conversation. You are. 

I answered your question about have people looked at the government workers and cited what they concluded. 
You ignored that and wondered around like you do. 
That is not good discussion. 

Then I asked if you thought there was a problem. 
You ignored this and wondered around again 

That is not good discussion. 

I also asked what would do differently and you could only say improve the people.  How?  Why is it not being done?  What should be done to the managers that have not been doing that?

Nothing from you. 

I asked if not Musk, who should try to fix it?

Nothing from you.  

That is why it is not a good discussion to you. 
You simply have you mind made up against anything Trump or Musk wants to do and refuse to acknowledge that there is even a problem. 
So, naturally you can’t discuss things with folks when they ignore facts when they are presented and refuse to answer questions but want theirs answered.  Then get upset when theirs are answered with information they do not like.  
If you want a discussion there has to be a starting point to enter a discussion.   
Not all of this long posting you do with wondering around topics. 

So, please just use ladder logic and start with the first question.  
Is there a problem?

@wallstreetcappers

Again, post #193 was a standalone post.  
It was NOT in answer to ANY question from you. 
It was a question TO YOU that you have not answered yet. 

@wallstreetcappers

 For someone who types so much you really do a mediocre job regarding discord and discussion,

Then yours is far worse than mediocre.  You still haven’t answered of the questions posed to you.  A few generalities.  But mostly wondering all around to different topics.  

@wallstreetcappers

 If you are referring to the study that they did on workers.  It is directly from the abstract and is very qualified data.  
There are many other studies you can look up.  

Just because you do not agree with theirs studies does not make them unqualified studies.  That is what the study sets out and explains and the folks doing it do this for a living.  

You cannot use just your opinion or your ‘good’ experiences with the workers.  
The overwhelming perception from folks is that government workers are less efficient and work less.  
So, that is why they did the studies.  

Have you done your own study to prover your perception that it is not true.  

Sometimes it has to be you that is wrong; it cannot be everyone else, including experts that have studied it and given ‘qualified’ data.  

That is the only question i answered and used data.  So, I never considered you did not consider it a ‘qualified’ study.  

@wallstreetcappers

 You answered a question with unqualified data, I asked for more than a set of numbers as I am not interested in blind unqualified data.

What question and what unqualified data?

I will answer it again with qualified data.  

@wallstreetcappers

 As far as your question(s), go back and read the answers again.  
Or ask exactly what part of it I did not answer that you did not see or understand what I meant.  
I will gladly rephrase it for you or clarify it.  

@wallstreetcappers

I was not answering your question with that post.  I was presenting you data and questioning you where you stood with that as a comparison for a starting point.  
Those were Democrats that wanted to fix it.  Were you okay with them wanting to?

It just seems you are against trying to fix it now because a Republican is trying to fix it. 

@wallstreetcappers

Yes, that is fine — to the extent that they are ‘blowing it up’.  

First you have to admit there is a problem.  I have not even seen you admit there is a problem. 

Then the question to you is: how do you fix it?

If you wait and let Congress ‘investigate’ it and set up committees to study it — it will never get done.  

Trump only has a year-and-a-half to do this.  

The other question is still: if not Musk, then who. 

Absolutely, you can blow it up.   I still am okay with the Hacksaw Jack method.  
Most places you go, if you lay off the bottom folks that are not working or performing then the rest will promptly go to work and start performing even better.  
You see several examples of this.  Even what Musk did at Twitter laying off 40% of the folks and still chugging along. 

If you do not think there is a problem in government with excess folks, non-performing folks and waste — then of course you think it is all wrong.  
This does not have to be a long drawn out procedure.  Just get it done and go from there. 
Look at all of the presidents that have tried or expressed interest and never did it.  The government only grew under them and worsened under them.  You pretty much have to go back to Coolidge to see how to do it. 

Sure, of course you make people better.  But if the managers have not been doing it — then fire those managers.  
But if you have too many people to start with because the people have not gotten better — you have to let some people go.  That is just the way it works.  

It almost had to be punishing in some way.  That is exactly what should be expected by a worker for poor performance.  Most of those jobs are not hard to do at all.  So, if they are really needed — replace them with someone that will do that job.  
If they are not needed and the job can be spread to better performing workers — then still let them go but there will be no need to replace them. 

You first have to see that there is a problem.  Then you have to address it in a very quick time table.  

I am sure if Trump does not ‘perform’ the voters will make sure to let him know soon enough.  
But in order to improve things he has to do what he campaigned on.  This is simply part of it. 

Again, you cannot just say that folks need to be developed to know how to perform and do their job, or to simply work or be kind to customers.  This is common sense in every other job.  
I always tell people when you are in a merit-based operation you should think you will be the last person laid off.  If you are worried that you are on the cutting block, it is only for one of two reasons.  We either do not need your job any longer or we have too many doing your job now.  
So, if you are worried about being laid off you know deep down maybe your performance was not up to par.  Or if you are worried they just have to cut all of your department, period; then you should be making yourself more valuable so that maybe they consider putting you in another job.  
There is rarely, rarely any excuse for a worker that has been on a job for an extended period of time to not be performing.  There is no development’ needed.  This is where the ‘punishment’ you are referring to should take place, in some form. 
This has not been happening in government like in other jobs; it is long overdue. 

@wallstreetcappers

This was a stand alone reply.  It was as in answer to a direct question.  
That is why it was a separate post.
Try to keep up. Then try to answer the question posed to you.   I answered your questions in the other posts