discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
I would still like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. No one on this board knows exactly what was discussed.
Kim Haircut has a taste for western civilization. Unlike his father, he was schooled and exposed to western culture in a much different environment than his father.
He wants to be recognized as a great man and treated globally as an equal. IME he seriously wants to improve the lot of his people and be accepted.
Trump is buttering him up, inflating his ego. Kim Haircut even answered reporters questions. Something he has never done in the past. He thought he could play the same games as his father over concessions. I am sure that he thought he had it in the bag, Trump was praising him. Then Trump comes in and says no. That has never happened to him before. How does he save face?
The next meeting will be the telling one. I think Kim Haircut wants this more than Trump.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
I would still like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. No one on this board knows exactly what was discussed.
Kim Haircut has a taste for western civilization. Unlike his father, he was schooled and exposed to western culture in a much different environment than his father.
He wants to be recognized as a great man and treated globally as an equal. IME he seriously wants to improve the lot of his people and be accepted.
Trump is buttering him up, inflating his ego. Kim Haircut even answered reporters questions. Something he has never done in the past. He thought he could play the same games as his father over concessions. I am sure that he thought he had it in the bag, Trump was praising him. Then Trump comes in and says no. That has never happened to him before. How does he save face?
The next meeting will be the telling one. I think Kim Haircut wants this more than Trump.
discussion comment
6 years ago
Discussing "trusts" as though they are important, is about as futile as discussing ratings as an absolute predictor as to a clubs appeal to everyone.
discussion comment
6 years ago
When you start getting junk mail from AARP.
discussion comment
6 years ago
The Plumbers Crack
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
flagoonerEverything written by this member is a fact.
I always thought old men were bitter because they were unhappy with their life.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
rickduganVerified and Certifiable Super-Reviewer
@rick
You can not make ratings any more meaningful by tweaking weights based upon # of reviews. If you have any basic understanding of statistics and modeling you would understand that the net difference is small.
If you are using the rating to determine if you should go to the 6.8 or the 7.2, more research is needed to differentiate. But if you are choosing between a 7.2 and 5.0
in the same market, you would still need to do more research. Comparing by rating alone could keep you out of Bandaids in Phx, even though there are a few PL's in Phx that love it.
Besides, any bias in the current system is basically equally applied to all ratings.
You are trying to fine tune quasi random events. I bet in your business, you spend way too much time trying to fine tune guesses.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
rickduganVerified and Certifiable Super-Reviewer
An individuals influence on any club with probably only 25+ reviews is probably considerably less than they think it is. Under 25 clubs, you would be skeptical of because they just don't appear to generate enough traffic to be reliable. IMO, ratings are useful only to compare within markets, for both quantity and quality.
Being overly concerned about the numerical score is fairly ridiculous. Considering the broad base of TUSCL members and their varied tastes, the score is of little value compared to the comments.
Regarding fake reviews, who cares? They have little impact.
What the fuck is this "I've been a member xx years, my opinion is more valuable"? I have been a member less than year and have probably been clubbing longer than you have been an adult.
discussion comment
6 years ago
I don't use the loser bean.
discussion comment
6 years ago
0.00%
discussion comment
6 years ago
He's 77 years old. His family and friends are probably surprised/glad he still has it in him.
discussion comment
6 years ago
There is a service in Pattaya that will pick you up from the BKK airport in a Limo with 2 massage girls for a reasonable price. They assist you in getting thru customs and out of the airport quickly. I would recommend spending time in the surrounding towns and visiting the beaches, you should definitely check out the underwater cave trips. You can have good times in the less touristy areas, and getting a 24 hour guide/escort can be had for a reasonable fee.
I plan on going in 1 1/2 to 2 yrs for my retirement gift.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
san_jose_guymoney was invented for handing to women, but buying dances is a chump's game
I think most of them would like to read your obituary.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
Europe became more socialistic because we subsidized billions of their defense. Trump got them to pay more. Let's see how that affects their socialism.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
One problem with a wealth tax is that a lot of this wealth is in stocks, bonds and real estate. Tax is already paid on the income earned, if you add another 2% tax, than the holdings have to appreciate annually in excess of the tax rate paid plus the wealth tax or the total wealth starts shrinking.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
@25,
I think the correct interpretation is that the cities offered the concessions. All Amazon did was ask municipalities to make their offer. You can't fault Amazon for NY offering 3X Virginia.
AOC, in her infinite lack of wisdom, chastised Amazon for not wanting to negotiate. If Amazon wanted to negotiate, they may have picked a different city. Their offer to the cities was to give them an incentive package, not give us something we can negotiate.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
Having Amazon in your backyard is such a bad idea, 238 municipalities bid for it.
AOC's district has 70% of its residents on welfare. They don't need no stinking jobs.
Yesterday, I briefly saw an article regarding a speech by AOC congratulating herself on Amazon's withdrawal. In her speech she said that "we don't need menial jobs".
It kind of sounded like she was unaware of what Amazon was bringing. When you consider that she is railing against Amazon's work practices as being too detrimental to employees it really becomes more and more clear she is misinformed and clueless.
Amazon has a reputation of being disciplined with high standards for its workers. Having standards is what makes companies successful.
discussion comment
6 years ago
It won't be a trend in AOC's district.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
steeldog65I swear, it's just shrinkage due the cold
@25
Your response makes no sense. Comparing Grumman and its issues with Amazon is beyond stupid. If real estate increases owners benefit. You talk as though only expenses are affected. Bringing 25,000 jobs will increase revenues for most businesses in the area and increase the opportunity to improve ones position. The motivated will prosper and the people on handouts will continue to be on handouts by choice.
Whether they are new or displaced workers, doesn't really matter, it will still increase revenues.
Amazon can revitalize the area. It sure needs it.
Look at the slow improving economy of Detroit, due to large companies taking a stake.
I would rather see a city displace a few and grow and prosper, than not displace and watch the area continue to deteriorate.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
steeldog65I swear, it's just shrinkage due the cold
@25
If 25,000 jobs is just a drop in the bucket, how can you argue that it will have such a negative and damaging effect on real estate. These service industries may have increased expenses according to you, but you don't account for the increased revenues they will receive.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
Correlation is not causation.
I think we are getting to a point where our recession will be caused by global slowdown and will be prolonged. The Asian/third world boom of the past 20-30 years is petering out without anything to take its place.
Keep in mind that governments are the final ponzi scheme.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
@25
Donor state, was the terminology of the study and it is a common term used in tax allocations. It is not my terminology.
You can basically get your facts from anywhere you want on this and they will basically illustrate the same.
Your last statement is basically nonsense.
You are really missing the big picture.
In the 70's and prior, Ca was a great place to live. They were the place to be for new and growing companies and industries. We did not have an immigration problem and politics were reasonable.
Ca began to get liberal and increase taxes to chase unicorns and fund the necessities of growth do to the demographic changes and influx of illegal immigration.
Due to increasing taxes, wealth began to leave. Taxes had to be raised to offset this loss, more wealth left.
Ca stopped being the go to state for business as other states became more business friendly. As you can see from the data I supplied earlier, Ca is no longer a "donor state".
Consider this, Ca has evolved to where the wealthier taxpayers (individual and business) that pay taxes have left only to be replaced by low income illegal aliens and freeloaders
that receive benefits from these taxes. That is why you are seeing the closing of the gap between federal taxes paid and received.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
Let's replace feelings and bets with actual studies:
Budget and Policy Post
January 18, 2017
Federal Spending in California
Comparing Federal Spending Received to Taxes Paid Nationally
This post compares federal expenditures in California to other states. To do this, we rely on estimates in studies that took a fifty state comparison approach. While we have more confidence in our estimate of federal expenditures in California that we displayed in Post 1, we cannot replicate our estimate for every state. Due to differing methodologies, our estimates of total federal expenditures to California are not directly comparable to the estimates in these studies.
Compared to Other States, California Receives a Smaller Amount of Federal Money Per Person. The Pew Charitable Trusts publishes an annual report on Federal Spending in the States where it estimates that California received $9,172 in federal expenditures per person in FFY 2013-14. (Our estimate of this figure is somewhat higher.) Pew’s estimate of per person expenditures in California is below the national average of $10,200. Figure 1 displays federal spending per person by state in FFY 2013-14, as estimated by Pew. Based on this measure, California ranked 41st (out of fifty states and the District of Columbia). In a blog post published in 2015, we noted this ranking is mostly because California, with a younger population, receives significantly less in federal retirement benefits, such as Social Security. In FFY 2013-14 California received $2,740 per person in retirement benefits, compared to the national average of $3,474. California also receives somewhat less per capita in federal salaries and wages, $752 compared to a national average of $957.
By These Estimates, California Receives $0.99 in Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes Paid. Figure 2 compares the New York Comptrollers’ estimates of dollars of federal expenditures received per dollar of taxes paid by state. Mississippi, the greatest beneficiary on this measure, received $2.57 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, while New Jersey, the lowest, received $0.77. According to these measure, in FFY 2012-13 California received $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, ranking 42nd among fifty states and the District of Columbia.
Is California a “Donor State”? In 2007, the Tax Foundation published estimates, using FFY 1981-2005 data, that showed California received $0.78 in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes (in the most recent year). Some have used this finding to suggest that California pays much more in taxes than it receives in expenditures (and, for that reason, has been dubbed a “donor state”). It is important to note that the Tax Foundation figure is adjusted to be deficit neutral so that the federal government receives $1 in taxes for each $1 it spends. To do this, the Tax Foundation increases its estimate of tax revenues from each state in proportion to the total federal deficit. In effect, this inflates the estimated amount Californians “pay” in taxes.
SO, IN 2005 DATA SHOWED .78 RECEIVED FOR EVERY 1.00 SENT, ALTHOUGH IT STATES WHAT WAS PAID IS OVERSTATED. IN 2017 DATA SHOWS .99 RECEIVED FOR EVERY 1.00 SENT. WITH THE AGING POPULATION AND CONTINUED WEALTH FLIGHT OUT OF CA THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT CA IS NOT A DONOR STATE.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
3.5 billion dollars of federal tax money went to support the bullet train to nowhere. That was one of the many Ca projects funded with federal money.
discussion comment
6 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
I left Ca in 1976 to get away from the overcrowding. Every time I return, So Cal seems more and more like it is over run by illegals. Ca is so concerned about identifying its illegal aliens that it doesn't want the citizenship question returned to the census because they could lose federal revenue.
I am all for Ca doing whatever shit the liberal leaders want to do, I just don't want my federal tax dollars supporting it. It seems like for every 10 people that left the state, 100 illegal aliens replaced them.
With regards to the wall, to those of you who have not seen/experienced the influx of illegals in Ca, Az and Tx, you really don't have a clue as to the seriousness of the problem.