GTMike
-
Posts
1,498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Donations
News
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by GTMike
-
-
2 hours ago, Go-dev said:
Nicholasnoah - Pornstar Performer, Rentboy, Gay Massage in Los Angeles, CA | RentMen
RENTMEN.EUPornstar Performer & Rentboy in Los Angeles, CA - Nicholasnoah: HUNG TOPI feel like both some of those pics and some variation of that name are familiar to me but can't specifically recall nor find the name through search.
Perhaps legit new and interested as well if anyone recalls or has intel
-
8 minutes ago, MikeBiDude said:
There’s on local RentMasseur guy who blocks people if they even look at his profile, let alone interact with him 🤣. A difficult business model to understand! 🤷🏻♂️
I think i know who you're referring to in SoCal, haha.
-
Just curious if anyone might have personal experience
-
Curious about him as well.
Currently in LA but seems that he has mixed reviews and inconsistent experiences?
-
On 3/16/2023 at 9:41 AM, TectonicThrust said:
@GTMikeAre you only describing the communication or did you have an actual session in which he was dismissive? I emailed with him a month or so ago but he was only doing outcalls. He now is doing incalls in Woodland Hills and I was going to try him. My communication with him has been fine but I would be interested in knowing more details about the actual experience if you can share or PM me. Thx
As we discussed over PM it was a bit of both. Communication and in person sadly.
-
42 minutes ago, Luv2play said:
I don't yet know the details of the cash injection made by the 4 largest US banks into First Republic but they are being characterized as deposits formerly held by those banks. I wonder if the depositors have been consulted about transfers of their money to uninsured accounts at FR?
Don't either but seems to be alot about investor confidence in the banking sector as a whole as well. Interesting take on it.
-
2 hours ago, Wolfer said:
Like if the provider was not, for any reason, living up to the agreements. For instance: doesn't look like his photos (older photos or outright catfish), promised to kiss but doesn't, shorts the time by half or more,...
My most recent experience was a provider whom I'd booked for 2 hours. 15 minutes into the second hour he declared the session over. I did pay for the whole 2 hour session, but I'd be interested in hearing how you have handled these kinds of things?
(I did point out we still had time but he just said "oh you're checking the time?" then just avoided the topic while he pushed me to the shower while he got dressed)
I have cut short a couple 1st time meets.
1) one-time the gent was the actual person depicted (cleverly) in the profile but was egregiously far off in terms of height and weight. So upfront we agreed on a significantly reduced rate (for the time to show up) and it was clear that at that point he could immediately leave. He wasn't "a bad guy" beyond that initial deception and he wanted to do perform (even at a reduced rate) but I said no. But we did hang out watching sports for a bit chatting.
2) Another time I had a gent who after brief appropriate small talk couldn't help himself talking about people he met through parties and work and he was naming names. I live in LA and he was name dropping known gay celebs and it wasn't scandalous like outing or saying bad stuff about them and honestly they probably wouldn't have cared, but he was gossipy. I quickly feigned an illness and was fair for travel and limited time spent but got him out.
-
30 minutes ago, Archbishop said:
I’ve only ever had providers ask to be paid upfront, never at the end. I’ve never had an issue, so I have assumed it is the norm. What is the norm for providers asking for payment… at the start or finish?
If it's a 1st time meet and was tentatively scheduled to perhaps exceed an hour I will typically offer a portion after 15 to 20 mins (just to instill confidence of no funny business) and almost always the gent says thanks for being considerate and defers till the end.
I've never paid had a gent request full payment upfront though one or two have hinted they at least wanted to see evidence of it but that's rare.
-
22 hours ago, gworgeiii said:
https://rentmasseur.com/Galactic_Tantra
Anyone have any experience with him?
Somewhat dismissive and pretty difficult regarding communicating/follow-up so unfortunately no longer a fan.
-
Do you mean specifically the flirt4free and chaturbate or are you also referring to potentially meeting up with onlyfans/twitter gents as well? If so I like you am experimenting and potentially meeting up with an OnlyFans/Twitter gent. (Not to film or anything like that)
Tentatively scheduled and hasn't happened yet (so who knows) but seems promising thus far and hopefully works out.
-
On 3/14/2023 at 2:43 AM, Luv2play said:
One thing you said I don't believe to be true is about the Treasury stepping in to backstop the value of deposits at SVB. For that Janet Yellen would have had to confirm that. Which she did not since that would have been tantamount to a taxpayer bailout.
What the Fed did do is to make their discount window more accomodating to other banks if they faced liquidity problems in the coming days. That window has a current limit of $25 billion and the Fed loosened this to accomodate potential withdrawals.
It is not yet known how much of a shortfall, if any, the assets at SVB will experience compared to liabilities, but if there is one then the FDIC will cover it and levy an extra fee against all banks, thus averting a taxpayer bailout which Biden vetoed.
My understanding is that the government made recourse to a provision in the law that allowed FDIC to make whole deposits above the $250,000 limit in cases where the integrity of the overall banking system was at risk. This as I noted above has rarely been resorted to but gave Biden the means to avoid a taxpayer bailout.
I agree
Here is the original Joint Statement from the US Treasury itself - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337
My point being that Treasury Department, President, Head of FDIC and Head of Federal Reserve had a coordinated response to the crisis in an attempt to help restore calm and confidence specifically by saying "all Depositors" in SVB and Signature Banks will be made whole.
Specifically the Treasury Department's joint statement on a Sunday (March 12th), notes, "...Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of SVB in a manner that fully protects all depositors ..... No losses associated with the resolution of SVB will be borne by the taxpayer ...Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders would not be specifically protected by these actions...)
So yes i agree that it was not an explicit statement of "backstopping" potential losses but it was not an accident the Fed took actions as you noted, the FDIC took actions as noted, and yet with unknown "tbd" potential losses the Treasury Department was apart of an official statement saying all Depositors will be made whole knowing that it takes time to sell off assets, assess and collect fees/premiums from member banks, all while depositors would be withdrawing.
-
28 minutes ago, Emir said:
AKA LeviLowBalls
Thinking about it I guess it all makes sense!
In January he's "Levi", a 24 year old straight guy with low balls hanging out in Texas.
Moves to LA in March and suddenly is "Chad", 22 and bi with a bright future! Hahaha
- BtmBearDad and BuzzLiteQueer
-
1
-
1
-
2 minutes ago, guru68 said:
"Wolf pack" is giving me Teen Wolf flashbacks. I wouldn't have minded a few of those guys showing up.
Ahhh haha yes definitely agree!!!
-
On 3/14/2023 at 10:49 AM, SundayZip said:
My taxable income is going to explode when I turn 73. Yikes! 😵 Required Minimum Distributions (RMD)s from a tax-deferred IRA account are the biggest culprits. When I add RMDs to existing pension income and social security, which I'll start taking at age 70, my taxable, ordinary income (excludes capital gains) will be the highest of my entire life. And, of course, Medicare part B and D premiums will go way up due to the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) adjustments. This pains me.
I'd interested in hearing what others are doing (or have done) to mitigate or reduce their RMD driven tax bomb?
Have you reserached QLAC's? - Qualified Longevity Annuity Contracts.
It is a way to creatively help reduce the amount of the 401k/IRA (not Roth), that is used to calculate the annual RMD's.
This article from a couple years ago explains them. - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/qlac-qualified-longevity-annuity-contract/
I believe the amount was increased in CY 2023 from the maximum of $135,000 or 25% of the tax deferred amount to $200,000 or 25% that you can withdraw from the account when purchasing Annuity Contracts that you can use to help with financial planning and flexibility in your 70's to basically around 85.
Basically you can withdraw up to the maximun allowed per year out of the account tax free if it is used to purchase specific types of annuity contracts.
Then you can time/optimize when the annuity contracts start paying you and continue deferring paying the tax until receiving that income.
-
Prior thread -
-
Also has a RMasseur profile as well under same name.
Haven't met but I'm gonna go out on a very large sturdy limb that if you also check "DavidKnight" profile on RMasseur as well that they're part of traveling pack and person who shows up might resemble one of these gents (which in some cases is fine with some folks including myself), but I doubt it's them. (Just my 2 cents based on prior knowledge and experience with a wolf pack participant and organizer).
I'll take the abuse of stating unsubstantiated opinions but again, "sturdy limb", haha
-
14 hours ago, Luv2play said:
Your analogy of insurance on a house not covering the whole amount of a loss of $500,000 isn't really apt here because in a case like that the insurance company will not even fully cover your insured loss of $250,000. They will say you underinsured your house and therefore must assume a part of the loss within the $250,000 limit.
This is because by understating the value of your house you avoided paying the full premiums that would have applied had the full value been insured. That is also why when house values increase insurance coverage is adjusted annually to reflect the amount the insurance company is on the hook for if there is a loss.
All very interesting and potentially different based on where one lives and what typical policies are for insurance.
For example I don't know if this applies to all of California but i live in Los Angeles. A typical Home Insurance Policy your home destroyed by a common variety fire.
The $ amount of the insurance proceeds (at least in my case) has little to do with the current "projected market value" but based and priced on the current projected "replacement value" of what it would cost to rebuild a similar sized and construction quality of a house.
Again (just speaking from experiences), the major insurance carriers have projected costs of construction that they use to estimate by zip code or some metric what it costs to rebuild and the brokers literally advise me against paying more in premiums as customer's reflexively tend to "overinsure" thinking they need an amount equal to it's market value.
But also being in LA we also are advised to get supplemental insurance for Earthquakes. As if there is an earthquake and gas pipes blow and that causes a fire that's falls under a different policy.
I can't remember specifically but i think if home is destroyed by flood then SOL.
-
14 hours ago, Luv2play said:
One thing you said I don't believe to be true is about the Treasury stepping in to backstop the value of deposits at SVB. For that Janet Yellen would have had to confirm that. Which she did not since that would have been tantamount to a taxpayer bailout.
What the Fed did do is to make their discount window more accomodating to other banks if they faced liquidity problems in the coming days. That window has a current limit of $25 billion and the Fed loosened this to accomodate potential withdrawals.
It is not yet known how much of a shortfall, if any, the assets at SVB will experience compared to liabilities, but if there is one then the FDIC will cover it and levy an extra fee against all banks, thus averting a taxpayer bailout which Biden vetoed.
My understanding is that the government made recourse to a provision in the law that allowed FDIC to make whole deposits above the $250,000 limit in cases where the integrity of the overall banking system was at risk. This as I noted above has rarely been resorted to but gave Biden the means to avoid a taxpayer bailout.
I don't think you have that correct in that there was indeed an affirmation of extending a federal backstop to SVB's depositors above the insured limit.
The actions this past Sunday was actually a coordinated response between Biden, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Head of the FDIC, and J. Powell of the Federal Reserve.
For reference check out this article for example - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/12/politics/janet-yellen-bailout-silicon-valley-bank-cnntv/index.html
Also it is a fluid situation and despite SVB and Signature Bank being under FDIC control the private banking market is still evaluating deals to purchase parts of the bank or different parts of the loan portfolio's etc.. potentially generating liquidity in order to satsify liabilities.
This Government response was more akin to a quick stopgap measure to stop a domino spill over effect into the industry and to instill calm in the markets and avoid greater panic withdrawals in the system but (at least thus far) is not a taxpayer government bail-out despite guaranteeing the bank's liquidity problem with depositors.
-
2 hours ago, Luv2play said:
That's not what happened over the weekend. The FDIC and Fed tried to have an auction of the failed bank but it didn't work because they were not able to make an assessment in the short time before Monday opening of how much the assets of SVP were worth. Faced with no buyers and the $250,000 limit on insured deposits, many companies were not able to make payroll on Friday. If this had persisted there was a real danger of the problem spreading rapidly throughout the banking sector.
So the government stepped in and covered every depositor for all their money held by SVP. They used a provision in law rarely resorted to so that taxpayers were not on the hook. Rather the banking sector overall would be liable for any losses and the fees levied on banks for deposit insurance would cover such losses.
This was not restricted to the US, as here in Canada 16 high tech companies who had their money in SVB Cda, a subsidiary, could not make payroll on Friday as well.
The good news is that there is no evidence that the banking system was in danger of seizing up as it did in 2008, when banks stopped lending to each other. The bad news is that tech companies are going to find it harder to borrow for expanding their businesses. And that will negatively impact the economy.
Based on comments it seems that you are in Canada and I therefore assume Canadian (Smiley face), but please know most American's aren't aware of how things work here.
Just FYI the "FDIC" which does stand for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation actually is an independent agency of the US Federal Government.
It was created in the early 1930's when thousands of banks failed after our stock market crash and US Depression.
In the ordinary course the Company doesn't receive money from the US Congress budget appropriations and is not money from taxpayers.
It generates income from premiums and fees that banks and savings associations pay into the system for deposit insurance converage for the banking system.
So outside commentary now saying that fees, premiums etc. are going to be levied is sorta trying to create a false impression that it's out of the ordinary in order to satsify depositor liabilities.
Now the US Treasury Department and The Federal Reserve can step in but i believe what they announced yesterday was that the Treasury department would backstop/guarantee the Depositors account values at these banks and the Federal Reserve would relax some lending requirements and provide favorable loans to banks to ensure liquidity throughout the system. This is all intended to help restore/maintain calm to the overal banking system.
And these are backstops to allow time for the FDIC insurance corporation to do it's thing but not a full step of actually using taxpayer dollars to fund the banks liabilities and be a "bail-out". (Some will argue that even by the government using it's power to back-stop or guarantee risk that it still creates a moral hazard for banks to be less risk adverse. Reasonable people can disagree when something does or doesn't cross a line.)
So you might ask why is it set up this way?
The FDIC is one example whereby "the free market" versus centralized goverment does a regulation dance and ebbs and flows over the years between more or less government regulation and intervention.
Our system is set up as the free market banking industry trades off government regulation with a negotiated self-regulation.
So as a compromise it's a quasi-free market concept and the banks collectively pay fees and premiums to provide insurance to depositors as a trade off for other regulations and controls etc.. they'd prefer not to abide by.
The Banking system wants to generate profits by making investments and increase it's shareholder value while the government has a responsibility to help protect consumers in a fundamental way by insuring theres a safe reliable place to store cash for the overall benefit of a healthy functioning capital market system.
-
7 minutes ago, Luv2play said:
That's not what Biden said today. Depositers at SVP are being covered for all of their deposits including those above the insured limit of $250,000.
If Biden's most recent comments today were that all the uninsured depsitors would be able to get their funds back in full that's because once the regulators took over and was able to assess the situation there were/would be enough assets in a disposition in order to satisfy the full amounts of Deposits.
If there wasn't then the uninsured may not have been able to recover the full amounts. My point was that after a seizure there is a process and in this case that is a different process from the comment I was responding to which stated he did not like "bail-outs". (The inference being that the Company was being rescued at taxpayer expense and would continue operating further with additional goverment supplied taxpayer funds). Which in this case is a different process.
-
2 hours ago, augustus said:
I don't like blanket bailouts like this. SVB was comically mismanaged. 8 months without a risk officer! SVB intentionally decided not to hedge its interest-rate risk. The notion that its depositors, the most highly educated and compensated people in the US, were unaware of FDIC insurance limits is not believable.
I don't think that SVB and Signature Bank are getting bailouts as you may be thinking. Depositors are getting their Federally Insured amounts up to the max of $250k.
These banks are being seized and then having their assets and accounts frozen and evaluated. If they can't be sold during an organized regulated process then remaining assets eventually are distributed to uninsured account holders at a pro-rata discounted amount. Executives at these banks typically get fired and recent large compensation to employees can in some cases be recovered.
Signature apparently was heavily into Crypto based depositor exposure among other risky and real estate related type businesses.
Regarding your comment about highly educated and compensated people not being aware of insurance limits you are correct.
Moderator's note: politics redacted.
-
Does anyone know if he has a R_Masseur profile?
-
-
1 hour ago, FrankR said:
My understanding is that it is basically a local anesthetic - it is a numbing agent. If you leave it on during oral, your partner may ingest the agent and it may numb their tongue and taste funny. I would suggest your apply, leave it on for 15 minutes, then rinse off once the numbing agent has done its job. Not a medical professional - you should definitely speak to someone better qualified than me.
I do use it quite a bit and would agree with that and is consistent with the directions and recommended usage.
411 on Arabgreek
in The Deli
Posted
Curious if anyone has any personal experience or history of pics for