Re: [TSPStrategy] Stimulus payments

Schools around here aren't completely closed.  They are on an every other day schedule for each half of the student body.  And because for a lot of kids living in poverty, a school lunch is the only decent meal they get, they can come to school and get food every day.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, March 20, 2021, 3:58 PM, Stan Kays <srkays@gmail.com> wrote:

👍🏻

Stan Kays
srkays@gmail.com

On Mar 20, 2021, at 11:30 AM, David Gordon <david@digitaldata.us> wrote:

Judd,

Yes, I did mean 4.8% and 9.6%.  I got a little carried away with the zeros.

David

Mo,

To start with I don't watch Fox News.  I am a registered Independent after having been a Republican for many years.  I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me.  Maybe you should turn off CNN and try to get some less biased news sources yourself.

I don't believe that the "American Rescue Plan" should include a lot of the things that are in it.  I am a firm believer that individual programs should be funded by individual bills so they are transparent and have to be voted on so the legislators are on record where they stand on issues. 

School lunches?  Shouldn't that be in an education package.  BTW, all the schools around here are closed, so I don't know who is eating these lunches.

Unemployment benefits?  Shouldn't that be in a labor bill.  BTW, I have spoken to small business owners who can't get their employees to come back to work because they are getting about the same or more money on unemployment than they were making when they were working. 

Individual Health Care?  Isn't that just an effort by a Democrat administration to expand Obamacare without bringing it up on the floor?

I could go on, but I guess you understand that I feel that our government does not spend our money wisely.  They are poor stewards of our tax dollars.  I am in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

'Nuff said.

David

On 3/20/2021 11:00, judd wrote:

I think you mean 4.8% and 9.6%

My numbers are extremely understated just to prove the point that the 3% is inherently way off.  I didn't think this warranted the time for precision, just demonstrating the lowest possible boundary limit is well above the claimed 3% should be good enough to dispute that ridiculous claim.

Anyone believing that 3% number should change the channel more often.  In addition their local Community College may offer a course on Critical Thinking, I would suggest taking it.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:54:46 -0500, "David Gordon" <david@digitaldata.us> wrote:

Actually the number is closer to 10%.  Not of households receiving stimulus, but of the 1.9 T going out as stimulus payments.

Judd, assuming your "worst case scenario" numbers:

Stimulus                        1,900,000,000,000  (1.9 T written out)
Payments                           92,149,120,000 (65,820,800 households X $1,400)
Percent of the                 0.048%
    Receiving payments

Assuming a "best case scenario" and we double that
                                        0.096%

My .02

BTW, I got my stimulus of $4,200.  Me, my wife and a college-aged grandson.  $1,400 X3.

 

On 3/20/2021 10:19, judd wrote:

The numbers are easy folks...$1.9 trillion X 3% divided by $1,400 per person would mean only 40,714,286 people would be getting the $1,400 dollar stimulus check...less than 41 million people.

Google "how many households in us make over 150k" and the first hit is a bar graph from www.statista.com that shows 81.4% of US households make less than $150,000 a year.  But the stimulus cuts-off for individuals making over $75,000 per year.  So lets assume every household is an individual just to worse-case this.  Then the www.statista.com that shows 53.6% of US households make less than $75,000 a year

Google "how many households in us" and you get 122.8 million per the Census Bureau.

53.6% X 122.8 million is 65,820,800 households, almost 66 million households,  And with at least 1 person per households that means easily 60% more people will be getting the stimulus than the 3% cited. 

Curtis, your source is way off.  Could you please cite a source for your claim?


On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:37:44 +0000, "Curtis Wall" <curtisakatoyo@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

Less than 3% of that 1.9T went to Americans, the rest to random programs. I dont know if that will stimulate the economy much.

 

 

---

From: TSPStrategy@groups.io <TSPStrategy@groups.io> on behalf of winfield100 via groups.io <winfield100=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 10:30 AM
To: TSPStrategy@groups.io <TSPStrategy@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TSPStrategy] Anyone buying a today?

 

What do the Moving Averages and the Oscillators tell you?

 

Things to me look a little "frothy" but $1.9 Trillion is getting injected into the economy 

 

 

 

 

On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:26 PM, Robert Winfield <winfield100@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Purchased a few shares of TSLA, TWST, PACB, and some of the ARK funds

I don't sell or trade though, only accumulate 
 

 

 

On Mar 19, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Mark Morrison <mark3m@swbell.net> wrote:
 

DWCPF is currently a mini-dip, but it is about 10% higher than when we sold S end of Dec2020. I am looking for a dip that will get to over 5% of that point on 31Dec. And I am beginning to accept that we are not going to see that condition. I am appealing to some of the members that watch their charts for thoughts on the possibility of getting a strong pullback in S.

 

--
Stan in Northwest Florida