If you have a 7 figure house... Odds would be you don't maintain it either... Well, other than to write the check... :)
I'm guessing smart money will be shorting at the open, and buying when they run low on sellers. Watch the level 2.
A bad quarter headline and stop losses can be used in conjunction with shorting to shake shares loose from nervous weak hands and pick them up artificially cheap. Usually they will start in the pre-market to drive the shock value and trigger stop losses at the open(since most of those only trigger during market hours) this will drive the price down very fast with heavy selling. That is where they reverse their position. With an average of 3+ million a day, this one should go text book.
If I had to guess, I would think it will reverse around the Conference Call today.
I've got some dry powder should that be the case.
If your going to shout...
At least use the right words and spell it right, or maybe even just one of the two? You got 2 out of 3 words wrong in that 3 word statement. Says a lot about you I guess...
What I asked had nothing to do with politics, or those two awful media outlets who scrape and pander in order to fill their shows with something. What I did point out however is the OP was as guilty as anyone at this point by complaining about it, since the complaint was as off topic as the very content he/she was complaining about...
is't it "ignore"?
That's the part that sucks about picking apart technical stuff on a forum. You will eventually make a mistake and it will become the focus rather than the content of the message, which is the important part...
lord, that does not make sense to me. Looking at today's volume, LNCO only has about 1/2 of LINE volume. If someone were converting, wouldn't they be closer together?
I already stated a solution, and previously lived it. It works well.
The key here is to make each individual (or their guardian, duh) responsible for their own health care. Make insurance what it is, insurance. For those that can not afford the basics, we already have a system in place, however replacing the way it works now with something more closely resembling an HSA that covers close to their deductible (not up to it, there has to be a pain point to keep the system from doing exactly what it is destined to do now). Here is the rub however. Unlike how the HSA system works now, if you don't use all of your "savings" the remainder gets cut to you at tax time in a taxable check. (since the savings is typically pre tax, taxing what you don't spend only seems to make sense, and doing it as part of your income on your tax form seems the most logical way to accomplish this.). It is the carrot to keep spending in check.
That way, the people don't feel obligated to use it or loose it, which we all know will cause the very position we want to avoid.
This also has the potential to actually decrease health care costs as there is now no network anyone is forced into, since the majority of spending is done outside the realm of insurance companies. People would actually have the ability to shop around for a doctor they like at their price targets. For some ultra expensive specialists are important. For others a friendly family doctor with a good bedside manner is top of the concern list. For others, it is the complimentary valet parking for their exotic car... What is important though as is with all competition based markets, what we typically see is that quality increases and costs decrease. The exact opposite of what the direction we are heading in provides.
I would not put may family through the grinder of running for office, I can and do however vote for people that share my thoughts and values, and will represent them in their position.
Seriously? Abused by a few? Dude, take a look at the UK as one of many examples, it's not a few. It's most... and why not? It's not like there is a reward for not abusing it. They get to pay the same amount if they abuse it or not, so human nature is going to take over and the abuse only escalates both in scope and intensity.
You are trying to change human nature because apparently you believe really hard in it. Sounds a lot like a religious man praying really hard for something.... a miracle that is not coming.
Here is the really funny part. You are looking at tacking on about $1000/year as a "little" more. Now, that is all fine and dandy if it is just you. However, think about this for a second, because you are asking every person to pay that additional fee. That is a $4,000 a year change for a family of 4, or almost 6% of their gross income. A 6% tax on an average family of 4. Wonder what that is going to do to their standard of living...
So then the argument is subsidies... ok, well, where do you think that money is going to come from? You guessed it, taxpayers. Where are most of the taxpayers? The same people you just wanted to give a subsidy to...
The lack of fiscal understanding of issues on a financial board just amazes me.
open up exports and all the excess will disappear... Of course the downside to that is part of the rediscovery of manufacturing in this country I believe will rely on the cheap gas...
How much is a little? Would you be OK with paying 50% more, 75% more, 300% more?
I'm glad you only pay a little more, but to assume that is the norm, and will remain the norm is a little silly to me.
I also have to fundamentally disagree with the entire premise of the way it is designed. They have this same system, and what I believe is the actual goal of single payer in numerous places around the world. It creates a whole new problem that further limits access to health care.
See when health care is free/cheap it tends to get abused. We are seeing this more and more now in countries with this system. Get a headache, to the doc. every little thing is accompanied by a visit to the doctor. So what ends up happening? Doctors get jammed up, and you wait extraordinarily long times for appointments. You want to "fix" health care, you don't make it cheap, you do however put some caps on what a person will spend out of pocket for health care in a year as "insurance" against financial ruin.
I'm a fan of making insurance exactly what it is, insurance. Not health care, insurance. This is the type of insurance I had. High deductible and an HSA. I used my HSA for doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. My deductible kicked in shortly after the HSA ran dry. This is what insurance is for. To keep you from financial ruin should something bad happen. I went to the doctor when I needed to, got any prescriptions I needed, etc. The annual outlay however was cheaper than an HMO package offered by my employer, and I got to go to whatever doctor I wanted to. There was no network, etc unless something really bad happened, and my insurance would have to kick in. By confusing the issue with a lot of people who don't comprehend the difference between health care and health insurance though you are going to get a government run bureaucracy that will be invasive, inefficient and ineffective.
Sounds about right. Average increase is ~4% according to polls. However that is average, and includes many large company funded plans. Where you are hearing the horror stories is coming from smaller companies who will now have to offer plans that are much more expensive, or pay the penalty, which some are opting to do. (those that are complying early) This puts people into the public exchanges where they are getting sticker shock because not only did they lose the benefit of their employer picking up some of the cost, they are also having to pay for a plan far more encompassing than what they had previously.
So what happens here is there are people who's rates have gone way down, (based on subsidies, etc) and peoples who have (or are) going way up. Remember, the medium and large business mandate has not gone into effect yet, so that 4% number is going to change, and most likely go up substantially. If you think the timing of this being after the midterms was anything less than a political play, you are kidding yourself.
So now the question is, if they want to wait until after a very important election year to enforce it... why? Just how bad do they think it could be to their election potential?
You cluelessness astounds me.
He may possibly be withholding that amount from his pensions to make up for what he is being paid out in dividends, so he does not get hammered come tax season.
You are also forgetting about any state taxes. Since Waikiki is in HI (second highest state income tax in the US), we can assume he could actually be subject to a state tax of up to 11%. (9% based on his comment on income). That would put him somewhere in the 31-32% total tax bracket. Now, that is 31-32% of all of his income. Since he stated his withholding only on his pensions, it is perfectly plausible that he has to set those higher in order to cover the amount he is being paid in dividends. When you hold an MLP like LINE, things can get real convoluted, because we don't know his cost basis, which would directly affect the taxes on the ROI.
Your comments only serve to show you as an ignorant blowhard internet bully. I would not be surprised if your wife beats you and you have to come here to vent your frustration with your life. You really should instead of accusing someone of lying, ask how they get to that number because it does not make sense to you. There is no shame or dishonor in asking someone to "show their work" because you are unable to understand how they got to their conclusion. It is common in most aspects of science, and just about any other professional field that you have to explain why you think something is how it is. Most people don't mind. The ones that do typically aren't worth the time to read anyway, and are often named Sheldon and work as a Caltech theoretical physicist...
In order to sell something... Someone has to buy it, right?
You can't have one without the other.
I doubt we will see any news on this in 2014 for 2 reasons:
1) lots of moving parts ATM
2) management stated that they would have to sustain over 1.1 for a while to consider.
Now, I highly doubt they are going to raise to the point of dropping below 1.1, so until 1.2 looks sustainable, I don't see a raise.
After that, I would think they would be somewhat regular in the raising for anything over 1.1... get it?