Friday, March 8, 2019
Friday, March 1, 2019
Bad Advice from a Bad Source
Only a unifying figure can beat Trump in 2020, former Clinton adviser says
Oh, good. Because who knows more about how to beat Trump than. . . a CLINTON ADVISER?
Seriously?
That's like asking someone from the Rams for tips about how to beat the Patriots!
If Democrats don’t put forward a unifying candidate in 2020 and try to win back at least some voters who supported President Donald Trump in 2016, they will lose, a prominent Democratic operative said.
No. No. Not listening.
When will these DNC types learn? Trying to appeal to voters who thought Donald Fucking Trump was a good choice for president is a fool's errand at best. You will never, NEVER, get these people to vote for a centrist Democrat. Remember 2016? We nominated the epitome of a moderate centrist Dem. How did that turn out again?
Oh, right!
“I imagine by the time people start actually voting, what they’re going to be looking for is someone that can bring the country together,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a top 2016 adviser on the Hillary Clinton campaign. “Either that’s the kind of nominee we’re going to have or we’re going to lose.”
Well, that's great. Because that kind of candidate doesn't exist.No one is going to "bring the country together." That's a utopian fantasy.Did anyone ever try harder to bring the country together than Barack Obama? From his famous "One America" speech, to bending over backwards to try to get just one Republican to vote yes on the ACA, his entire political career was based on trying to bring the country together. And how did that work out again?
Oh, right!
Now, looking back at 2016, the Republicans nominated the most divisive candidate I can ever remember running. He openly sneered at and slandered large swaths of the population, told his followers to assault people who disagreed with them and doled out insults like they were Halloween candy. This is a candidate that, by your logic, should have zero chance of winning a national election. How did that turn out again?
Oh, right!
Palmieri, in an interview on the Yahoo News podcast “The Long Game,” said that the political press now is overestimating the degree to which the Democratic primary electorate will move to the left.
Really? Cuz. . .
Morning Consult poll: Bernie Sanders is most popular senator, Mitch McConnell is least popular
Poll Finds Bernie Sanders Is Most Popular Politician In America
It turns out Americans are still feeling the Bern. According to a Harvard-Harris survey, the Vermont senator is viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters.
“The press equates enthusiasm and interest on the Democratic side with ideological extremism, and those two things, I don’t think, go together,” Palmieri said.
Well, I guess it depends on how you define "extremism." Because when the policy proposals of the Sanders/Warren/AOC wing of the party poll like this
Americans want Congress to raise the federal minimum wage. Poll after poll shows widespread support, even among Republican voters. And a majority of voters want it increased to $15 an hour.
Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll
BY MEGAN KELLER - 08/23/18 11:16 AM EDT
Three quarters of Americans favor higher taxes for wealthy -Reuters/Ipsos poll
maybe it's time to realize that what you call "ideological extremism" is actually mainstream politics. The times, they have a-changed. Your old road has rapidly aged. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand.
“There are constants in politics, and predictions being wrong a year out are one of them,” she said.
Four years ago at this time — a year out from the first primary contests — “nobody was thinking … that the 2016 campaign was going to end up being an election about the kind of country we are.”
EVERY ELECTION is about what kind of country we are! God, you people are so terrible at this!
2004 was about whether we would remain a country that uses torture, invades countries that have done nothing to us and tosses out habeus corpus every time we think there's a monster under the bed. And the voters said "Yup! That's the kind of country we would like to continue being!" Then in 2008, the election was a bout whether we wanted to keep going down that path or if we wanted some Hope and Change, and we said "Hope and change, please!" That's what elections are. They are choices about what kind of country we want to be. Otherwise, we would just pick the most qualified, experienced candidate and Hillary Clinton would be in the Oval Office as we speak. She isn't because people like you don't understand that simple fact and keep convincing yourself that the electorate is going to make sensible, logical decisions. You'd think after we elected the dullard son of a failed one-term president TWICE, you'd have figured this out.
Democrats were “all freaked out” by the massive amount of money being raised by a super-PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, “that they were going to spend on [attacking] Hillary,” Palmieri said.
“As it turns out I think they spent most of that money trying to take down [Sen.] Marco Rubio and other Republicans,” she said. “That money never got spent on us, and yet we lost.”
And yet, you think you're someone who should be giving advice about elections! That's some god damn chutzpah right there!
Palmieri wrote a book that came out a year ago called “ Dear Madam President ,” in which she exhorts female leaders to imagine new models of leadership that are feminine and not carbon copies of male leadership.
But the book is also a tale of Palmieri’s soul-searching in the wake of the 2016 election, which she said felt like “the universe exploded.”
“Nothing made sense to me anymore. Right. This is how the man who worked in coal his whole life and now can’t find a decent job feels,” she wrote.
Well, it would be if the unemployed coal miner had a book deal and was going to get hired by every other centrist coal mine in the country willing to pay top dollar, winning be damned!
In that vein, Palmieri said on “The Long Game” that since 2016 she has gone out of her way to spend more time with people who think differently and who are politically conservative, taking trips to the South and reconnecting with old acquaintances from her childhood who are reliable Republican voters.
NO! God, you people have such an extraordinary talent for learning exactly the wrong lesson!
You don't win elections by making nicey nicey with your opponents. You are not going to convince them to come over to your side .They've spent the last 30 years listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly tell them that our side is pure evil, that we hate America, that we want to destroy white culture or whatever. They aren't going to say, oh, your candidate is more of a centrist? That means they only want to be sorta-Marxist, right? Great, count me in!
A wise man, I believe it was Harry Truman, once said something along the lines of "if you give people a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll choose the real thing every time."
Palmieri said it was too early in the process to give any particular Democratic candidate an edge but said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is one candidate who is “underestimated.”
“She’s different in that she’ll grab on to an issue that might not have a ton of support or certainly comes with a lot of controversy, and she just doesn’t let go, and she doesn’t care. And she knows she’s going to get attacked for it and she sticks there anyway,” Palmieri said. “That’s something a little different.”
Seriously? That is the OPPOSITE of being a "unifier!" Latching on to a controversial issue and sticking to your guns when you're attacked for it is the opposite of "unifying." The thing is, though, that IS how you win elections. You take firm positions, you defend them, and you energize your base. You don't win by trying to find some unicorn candidate that is going to be all things to all people and bring everyone together. You win by driving more of your voters to the polls than the other guy drives voters of his -- boy, I'm glad my English teacher mother isn't around to see that sentence structure!
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock should also get a hearing from the Democratic party, Palmieri said, because of his ability to work with a very conservative legislature.
Damn it! You had it, then you lost it.
The goal of this election cycle is NOT to elect a President that can work with a condervative legislature. The goal is to elect a progressive president who will have no trouble working with the progressive legislature that we put in place instead of the current one. We already flipped the House, in 2020 we need to flip the Senate. Otherwise nothing will ever get accomplished. Barack Obama spent 8 years trying to "work with" the conservatives in the legislative branch. He was rebuffed at every turn. They didn't even try to pretend that they were interested in any kind of bi-partisanship or compromise. The very idea is anathema to them.
There is no working "with" today's Republican Party. Even if some of them wanted to reach across the aisle, their base would punish them for it. The only way we are ever going to get good things is to beat them at the ballot box, then steamroll them in the legislative process. Barack Obama had three signature achievements, the economic stimulus plan, the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Affordable Care Act. All three were pushed through while Democrats had a majority in both houses, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Once Republicans took back the Congress, that was over. They blocked, obstructed, and filibustered EVERYTHING. They were completely shameless about it. If we have another situation with a Democratic president and a Republican majority in either house (or a large enough minority in the Senate to filibuster) history will repeat itself. They will bring the government to a grinding halt rather than let a Democrat have any accomplishments. And their voters will reward them for it.
There is no bi-partisanship. It's dead. The only way forward is to defeat them utterly and do what needs to be done without any consideration for their disingenuous whining. We're not going to bring the country together. So we might as well win.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
The 2019 Conservative Olympics.
It's that time of year again. Time for CPAC, the right-wing Olympics, in which conservative shitheads compete in events like Who Can Tell The Stupidest Lie and Who Can Be The Most Offensive.
In the normal person Olympics, there are categories like Track and Field, Aquatics, or Cycling. In the shitlympics of CPAC, most events are organized into 4 major categories: Dishonesty, Insanity, Stupidity, and Shamelessness.
It's early in the competition yet, but let's check in with some of our contestants.
One of the first notable participants was the "My Pillow" guy, Mike Lindell.
Until recently, Lindell was known only for making a pillow that is pretty much the same a s any standard pillow you'd find in any Target or Wal-Mart and somehow convincing people to pay 50 bucks for them. So he's definitely got shamelessness going for him. Let's see his floor routine.
Mike Lindell, a conservative Christian and owner of My Pillow, asserted on Thursday that President Donald Trump has been “chosen by God.”
Now ordinarily, a move like this would be considered to have a high degree of difficulty, but this is CPAC, where everyone ptetty much already believes that, so he's going to have to add a new wrinkle if he wants to pull down a high score.
During Thursday’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Lindell told the audience that Jesus had saved him from alcoholism and crack addiction.
Ooh, and he's veering a bit off-topic, this might not play well with the judges. They do love a good Jesus story, but acknowledging that white people get hooked on crack? They may deduct a full point for that. We'll have to wait and see.
“I woke up from years of addiction, and I was oblivious as to what was going on in our country,” he explained. “What I saw before me were friends unemployed, terrible political correctness, people saying happy holidays instead of merry Christmas
Oh, wow! Nicely played! The very thought that the biggest problems our country faced were unemployment and the fact that it wasn't really cool to say racist shit? They're gonna love that at CPAC. And the cherry on top: the fantasy of people afraid to say the words "merry" and "Christmas" even though everyone says those words all the time the entire month of December, that's a sure crowd-pleaser!
“Donald Trump invited me to the meet him at Trump Tower in New York City,” Lindell said. “I walked into his office with high hopes on August 15th, 2016. I walked out of that office after meeting with him and I knew God had chosen him for such a time as this.”
And he sticks the landing!
But, as we said earlier, the low degree of difficulty may cost him here. It's been widely accepted on the right for years that the President of the United States is chosen specifically by God himself to lead the free world unless he's a Democrat. He's really not pulling out anything the judges haven't seen a thousand times before.
Lindell added: “God answered our prayers, our millions of prayers and gave us grace, and a miracle happened on November 8th, 2016. We were given a second chance and time granted to get our country back on track with our conservative values and getting people saved in Jesus name.”
I would say he's beating a dead horse at this point, but to be fair, this is CPAC, where dead horses are beaten like rented mules and these folks eat that shit up.
Now let's head over to the main stage where former governor Scott Walker is preparing to compete in Most oOtrageous Lie:
Holy shit -- here's @ScottWalker suggesting some people "take the baby home and kill the baby at home."— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2019
"By the way, it's not live-birth abortion. It's not infanticide. It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it's murder."
Nobody disagrees with that! pic.twitter.com/w6Q8B6wDrA
Wow! A very strong opening round from Walker! That lie is going to be hard to beat. The combination of the audacity, the brazen untruthfulness, and the repulsive quality - - well, that's just not something you see every day.
Now our forst international competitor, Sebastion Gorka from God knows what country - FakeAccentistan? Gorka is an experienced veteran in the sport of outrageous lying and is also a Nazi.
Former Trump White House official Sebastian Gorka: "They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved."— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2019
😂ðŸ˜ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜ðŸ¤¦♂️ pic.twitter.com/t5amL02ABm
Oooh. That came up a bit short. I mean, it's completely absurd of course, absurdity has always been Gorka's strong suit, but I don't think we're really seeing the offensiveness that it would take to hang in there with Walker. Gorka's lie is laughable, but not in a way that you would feel guilty about laughing. No mention of dead babies, no accusations of infanticide. . . just not his best work. And the judges agree.
It's going to be tough for Gorka to medal this year.
And I'm getting word now that another former governor, Maine's Paul LePage, has entered the competition offsite.
That's right, Perfessor. LePage is not even at CPAC, but this entry could earn him at least a silver in Blatant Racism.
Speaking to the hosts of the WVOM morning show this week, former Governor Paul LePage lambasted a bill being considered by Maine’s legislature to join with other states to essentially bypass the Electoral College and ensure that the President is elected by the national popular vote.
“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” said LePage.
Oh, and that's a stunningly racist statement from LePage! Very few contestants are able to avoid the "sugarcoating" trap and just pour out straight 100-proof vintage racism like that. We haven't seen a racist this strong since the days of Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox! I gotta say, this makes him the man to beat in this event.
Well, that's all the time we have tonight. Tune in tomorrow for more coverage of the 2019 Shitllympics. Brought to you by overpriced mediocre pillows!
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Be afraid. Be very afraid
Everyone on FOX "News" has their little pre-fab persona to act out. Sean Hannity is the swaggering faux-tough -guy, Tucker Carlson is the spoiled rich kid who ahs fame and fortune but is inexplicably angry All. The. Time. And Fox & Friends play the dual role of the people who are so cartoonishly stupid that they make the other FOX personalities seem, well, not "smart," exactly but almost normal?
And they also play the part of the people who are scared to death about everything. What's got them peeing their pants in a blind chicken-little terror today? Why, it's none other than out favorite new member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!
First they got into a tizzy because she did something truly frightening. She had the nefarious idea to pay members of her staff a *gasp* living wage!
I have a request for Tocata and fugue in D-Minor. And a one and a two. . .
(via: IJR)
‘Fox & Friends’ Host Compares Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Staff Salaries to ‘Socialism and Communism’
.
Sunday morning, the hosts took a shot at the lawmaker for choosing to pay her entry-level staffers an annual salary of $52,000.Host Pete Hegseth explained that Ocasio-Cortez would be paying her Chief of Staff only $80,000 annually instead of “the actual market rate on Capitol Hill, which is closer to $150,000.” He added, “It’s actually socialism and communism on display.”
You know nothing of my work!
Now how is this communism and/or socialism? Well, see, each member of Congress gets a certain amount of money to hire staff and they have to decide how to spend that money, how many staffers to hire, how much to pay them, etc. And AOC, being a dirty commie, has decided to not pay her chief of staff as much as most members do so that she can pay a living wage to lower-level staffers, and that budgetary decision equals . . . um. . . communism? I guess?
I mean, I guess if your chief of staff was already making $150k a year and the Congresswoman said "sorry, pal. I'm reducing your pay down to $80k so I can give a halfway decent salary to these other employees, that chief of staff might have a legitimate beef, but since that's not actually happening. . . um. . . COMMUNISM!!!
And it gets even stupider:
For some reason, I can't get the video to embed, but you can watch it here:
https://ijr.com/fox-friends-ocasio-cortez-aoc/
Suffice it to say that one of them has a problem with the fact that she is re-destributing money that came from the government, not her personal earnings, as if every single god damn member of Congress doesn't get exactly the same deal. One of them seems to think that she is literally robbing her chief of staff to pay her entry-level employees, and they all seem to agree that a situation in which the employer decides how much to play employees is the epitome of socialism/communism.
But that freak-out was just a warm-up for this latest fear frenzy:
(Via: C&L)
Fox And Friends Freaks Out: AOC's Vow Not To Have Children Will 'End Earth'
In an Instagram live video this week, Ocasio-Cortez said that it was understandable for young people to question whether to bring children into the world.
Okay, that seems perfectly reasonable -- oh wait, I mean "AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!"
“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she explained. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?”
See, now this is where it gets tricky being a FOX personality. How do you take a perfectly sensible statement about the perfectly valid trepidation the younger generation has about bringing children into the world and find a way to twist it into something Scaaaaaary?
On Tuesday, Fox News host Pete Hegseth accused Ocasio-Cortez of believing someone could be considered a “bad person” for birthing a child amid climate change.
“Because you’re going to ruin their lives and you’re going to ruin the planet,” Hegseth chided.
Yes. That's exactly what she said. She said having kids makes you a bad person. That's it exactly.
“Eventually, if people stop having children, guess what, none of us are going to be here,” co-host Jillian Mele warned.
Okay, wow. First of all - oooh, scary!!!
But also - We are already here. Whether or not the younger people choose to make babies or not has no effect on us being here. And within a half-century, none of us will probably be here anyway no matter how many babies they pop out, because that's how life works. You get old, you die, babies grow up to take your place and soon there is no one left with any memory of you.
“Eventually, if people stop having children, guess what, none of us are going to be here,” co-host Jillian Mele warned. “Like there’s not even going to be Earth anymore.”
Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but even if, somehow, every single person on Earth took what you're pretending is AOC's advice and stopped reproducing and eventually there was no more human race, the Earth would still exist. And it would still teem with life. Honestly, it would be better off without us. Without humans, the land would become re-forested, the rivers and streams would once again be clean and clear and beautiful creatures from butterflies to bears would frolic in the sunshine.
“I don’t want my daughter raised in a socialist environment,” co-host Ainsley Earhardt said of the effort to combat climate change. “I mean, look at Venezuela. That’s what’s bad for the kids.”
Amazing how they can bring everything back to the specter of "socialism" and via that specter, to the nightmare of their imagined version of Venezuela. It would almost be impressive if it weren't so ham-fisted.
I mean, what does socialism have to do with climate change? Who knows? But it's scary, right? "Socialism?" oooooohhhhh!!!
“And what’s unhealthy for society is when they can’t replace themselves,” Hegseth opined. “Demographics say 2.1 [children per household] is a healthy, growing country.”
Demographics say? It's demographics that say that? Is that right? That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm no fancy big-city demographer. If any of you readers are, maybe you could let me know. Because I don't think that's what demographics is. I mean, I know why a FOX Friend is concerned about demographics and population growth. Hint: it rhymes with "what if white people become the schminority?" And that is a scary thought for the rageaholic septuagenarians that make up the F&F audience.
One in particular.
“She said the world is going to end in 10 to 12 years, this is like World War II, this is her religion,” he added.
Um. . . what?
She absolutely did not say that the world would end in 10-12 years. She said, quite correctly, that scientists have determined that we have about 10-12 years to take serious action on climate change before the damage becomes irreversible. I don't know what she said about WWII, but this actually is pretty analogous to WWII, in that we are under a serious threat and need to respond quickly and drastically if we want to neutralize that threat. It will take a lot of money and effort, but so did fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the same time and we managed to pull that off.
As to the religion part? "This is like World War II, this is her religion?" I'm a little mystified by that.I mean, I grew up a member of the Church of World War II (glory to Patton) and the minister never once spoke of climate change in his sermons.
Let us now read from the Book of Armaments.
“I just don’t like her saying, ‘I’m the boss,'” Mele concluded.
Wow, this became a trope on the right pretty quickly. This idea of AOC thinking she's "the boss."
from National Review:
AOC Is Not ‘the Boss’ for Coming Up with a Plan That Can’t Work
From Fox:
Tucker Carlson: How dumb, arrogant Ocasio-Cortez became the boss of the Democratic Partyfrom Radio.com:
Newell Normand. : AOC is the boss of the Democrats now, whether they like it or not.
I guess it's not just the Fox Friends who are scared to death of this woman!
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Important relevant advice for normal people
How to Avoid Going Broke After Making $650 Million
Step one: Don't be a fucking moron.
No wait,
Step one: Get $650 million
Step two: Don't be a fucking moron.
So, supposedly, Johnny Depp is broke. Which would actually be a bit of karmic justice, if true. Although he could probably remedy that situation by signing on to any of the dozens of film projects being thrown at him from every angle every day. But, regardless, Johny Depp may, after having "earned" $650 million, may be broke. And someone at Bloomberg thought that the general public needed to be warned about the various pitfalls that accompany large acquisitions of wealth, lest we too fall prey to whatever it is that causes rich people to stop being rich (drugs? settling lawsuits by the women you've assaulted? Paying for the hotel rooms you went Keith Moon in?)
And so once again, I will lay out a simple set of rules that can help any recipient of new-found wealth avoid some of the most common errors, and maybe keep from going broke. Here goes:A plan?
A plan? You think a PLAN might be a good idea? Because I'm sure that there are people who could somehow come into a large gaudy sum of money and not make any sort of plans, and those people are probably reading Bloomberg Financial Bullshit News on the regular.
Have a plan: I guess the mere fact that we are discussing a squandered $650 million fortune means I have to start with this one.
Anyone who comes into a pile of cash must think about ensuring it lasts a lifetime. Note this isn't just about actors or athletes, but the 60 million people who stand on the precipice of a $30 trillion intergenerational wealth transfer.
No. Stop. Stop it right there. Let's not pretend that the general public is going to be rolling in Johnny-Depp-style wealth. Let's not pretend that just because the total amount of wealth being inherited adds up to $30 trillion that that means everyone is getting $500 thousand. Because most of us are getting squat. People with names like DuPont and Walton and Koch are going to be getting the vast majority of that $30 trillion. We don't, no matter how much we may dream of it, have long-lost wealthy uncles who are going to leave us the deeds to their stately mansions provided we can spend one night in the house!!!! Bwahahahaha!!!
The beneficiaries and heirs of all that wealth need a plan to manage that money, even if it is in amounts somewhat shy of a half-billion dollars. Making whatever you have last as long as you need is the goal.
Yeah, no kidding! What a fucking insight!
Let me see if I got this straight.
I want the money. . .
to last . . .
as long as I need.
Is that it? Do I have that right?
God, no wonder you're the financial expert! Will you be my money adviser guy?
2. Delegate but be involved: Be aware of the details of your own finances. The most successful athletes and musicians have business managers who might handle the day-to-day chores while they are on the road workingAh, yes. In fact I seem to remember you mentioning something about business mangers earlier in the article. What was it you said again?
Depp is now suing his business manager and his firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
Right. Right. Yes, I can see the value of having professionals handle one's money.
but they must understand their own earnings, spending and investments. It’s your money, it’s your responsibility — if you do not know the specifics, then you are just asking for trouble. If Michael Jordan and Bruce Springsteen find time to be intimately involved in their personal finances, then you can too.
Right. Sure, That makes sense. Because who's busier than. . . **checks Google** . . a retired athlete and a singer who hasn't put out an album since 2014?
But sure, if those two legendary superstars can do it, there's certainly no reason us regular ordinary folks can't match their achievements. . . wait. What were we talking about? Oh, right. It's certainly feasible for any of us working stiffs, once we miraculously come into great wealth, to learn the ins and outs of finance and develop enough expertise to. . . um. . . monitor our financial advisers? Because we've got time for that, but I guess not enough time to make our own investments? We're not smart enough to decide which mutual funds to sink our vast fortunes into, but we're certainly smart enough to tell whether our business manager has chosen wrong.
3. Understand your career cycle: We all begin as newbies, grow into our peak earnings years, then scale back the workload or retire.
Yes,. That's how career paths go. And boy, I think that Ike sure is doing a good job as president, eh? And how about that Elvis Presley? Oh, these kids and their "rock and rool" music!
Here's how careers go in the 21st Century. You start out as an unpaid intern. Then, if you're lucky, you become a newbie.Then your position is eliminated, you re-apply to do the same job as a "contractor" with no benefits. Then the company figures out a way to have someone in India do the job for half what they were paying you. Then you drive an Uber and turn your home into an Air B&B. Repeat until death.
The first decade or so is when we become better, smarter, more skilled; the second phase is when we capitalize on those skills; the last is when we kick back
Right, because it's not as if you need to be constantly acquiring new skills all the time as technology continues to evolve. Just look at all the people making killings right now programming for DOS!
The mistake of assuming peak earning years will last much longer than they do is surprisingly common.
Note to millennials: "Peak earning years" is a mid-20th-Century concept based on the idea that one's employer was not constantly seeking ways to eliminate one's position and that as one gained experience, one would become more valuable to one's employer and therefore more highly compensated. Obviously this is not something any of you are likely to encounter.
4. Friends and family entourage on the payroll: Buy Mom a modest house, if you’re so inclined, tell everyone you love them, then let them live their own lives. When they come around asking for financial help, politely sending them packing.
Um. . . so. . . the opposite of friends and family om the payroll?
Also, your advice is to be a sociopath? I mean, I get you can't give everyone money for new cars and fancy vacations or whatever, but if my brother needs surgery? And his insurance won't cover a lot of the expense because we live in the country with the absolute stupidest healthcare system on the planet? I'm not supposed to help him even though I'm rich now? Rich enough to buy my mom a house?
And seriously, why is this advice labeled "Friends and Family Entourage on the Payroll?" This one is kinda confusing.
5. Avoid debt
See, now that's the kind of insight that you can only get from an expert professional. Avoid Debt. Wow. I wish i would have thought of that! Because, honestly, my thought was that if I ever win the lottery, the first thing I was gonna do is borrow a bunch of fucking money for some reason.
Avoid debt: Living within your means should get easier as earnings rise. Instead, people find more expensive ways to fritter away their cash. Access to credit all too often is the enabler of profligacy that can easily outstrip even multimillion-dollar salaries.
So I was right the first time. Don't be a fucking moron.
6. Keep your investments simple: This is especially important for anyone who is on the road or travels a lot for work. If you spend six months shooting a film in Malaysia, you probably lack the time to monitor how much risk your hedge-fund managers are putting on.
Really? Because the impression I got was that if Micheal Jordan and Bruce Springsteen can do it, there's no excuse for anyone else not to monitor their financial wheelings and dealings.
Although, maybe it's different for the large percentage of readers whose job often involves 6-month filming stints in Malaysia.
Better to keep it simple, hold down costs and limit tax liability. A portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds will grow over the years with a minimum of volatility and headaches. Find an experienced pro other than your business manager — if you have one — to help manage this.
Wait, so now I have to hire a business manger AND a separate investment guy? See, I think this is how I'm going to end up going broke, paying all these guys.
Not a measuring stick or an end in itself? Are you new here? This is America, pal, not the Merry Old Land of Oz. Grow up!
Depp would have been better served if he approached his money with the same gusto he applied to inhabiting his roles. That’s a lesson for all of us.
Yeah, I think probably he did. That's how he went broke. Approaching money with gusto looks something like this:
Do you see a lot of "gusto" in this picture?
No, of course you don't.
Do you even know what gusto is?
Here's a hint:
Anyway, none of us are ever going to be rich, but if by some stray miracle we ever do, we'll remember the most important rule. Don't be a fucking moron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)