patrick.net

upisdown says

they(CALPERS)never guaranteed anything, they have projections for returns and they have beat their OWN projections, and there's no specific or set in stone return %

Exactly. The state has guaranteed the payments, but the vehicle that the state uses to finance those payments cannot guarantee sufficient returns to meet those obligations. We hope for 7.5% returns because that's what we need, but nobody can guarantee that kind of return. As for recent results, those returns reflect the temporary effects of boomers being in their peak earnings years and saving for retirement, plus Fed QE and ZIRP, combining to produce an asset bubble disconnected from the real economy. Past performance is never a guarantee of future results, especially after a year when S&P500 returned over 30% gains. This little exchange is off topic anyway, but I was hoping you had stumbled upon something worthwhile since you claimed to have posted it; that hope was obviously in vain.

curious2 says

The state has guaranteed the payments, but the vehicle that the state uses to
finance those payments cannot guarantee sufficient returns to meet those
obligations. We hope for 7.5% returns because that's what we need, but nobody
can guarantee that kind of return.

True, the state must guarantee the payment, but the fund(CALPERS) never once guaranteed any % return, nor could they. They must provide the annuity payments and that could be considered a guarantee, but you making the presumption that they must get X% return is ludicrous, because the the metrics change constantly.

The rest of your post is useless and irrelevant nonsense that's been thrown around so much, it's value(which was and is, nil)along with it's value of fear, is also nil.

curious2 says

This little exchange is off topic anyway, but I was hoping you had stumbled
upon something worthwhile since you claimed to have posted it; that hope was
obviously in vain.

I told you where the info is, and your attempt at guilt won't change where that info is located, so stop being so lazy and go look for yourself, maybe you'll learn something in the process, although it's doubtful(which......you looking, or learning?).

Dan8267 says

And once again, if you're bitching and moaning about Teacher's unions, the
answer is the same. Overturn Citizen's United. End all PACs and SuperPACs.
Publicly finance all elections with equal media time for all candidates. Outlaw
selling political ads.

More blathering about CU... I gave you the link to the actual decision. Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

BTW, do you think that an atheist organization that publishes clearly identifying information or ads against a named religious candidate within 60 days of an election should be guilty of a crime for doing so? Or would this be the carve-out/exception in your world of tight government control of political speech?

humanity says

Why are you such a shill for the plutocracy ?

Why are you such a shill for the teacher's union?

The Teacher's union is doing the exact same thing that the steelworker's unions did in the past - like padding the payrolls with excessive numbers of teachers since it means more union members and more dues. The result will be the same too,.

Paralithodes says

Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Or (d) I thought of something else that you didn't because I think more clearly.

These are the reforms I would implement.
1. Outlaw campaign contributions.
2. Publically finance campaigns giving equal ad time, side by side, for all candidates.
3. No organization gets to spend any money on campaign ads.
4. Individuals can post whatever the fuck they want on the Internet and can campaign for candidates with their own time and bodies, but they cannot get paid directly or indirectly for doing so.
5. But no organization with a tax ID can do this, including non-profits. Freedom of speech is for the individual, not made up entities like corporations and PACs, and freedom of speech is about speech, not money. The law restricts the flow of money in campaigns, not the flow of speech.

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

You need to be specific and clear about what claim you are asking me to verify or contradict. Your writings are often not clear. In this case, I have no idea what claim you are making. The statement "Citizen's Unit was correct." is a meaningless statement to me as it is a statement about the correctness of a court opinion. Opinions, by definition, are neither correct nor incorrect.

Please be specific and succinct like this:
Claim: Oysters are never purple.

Do that and then I'll address any claim you make. I don't try to "read between the lines" to decipher what people mean.

Paralithodes says

BTW, do you think that an atheist organization that publishes clearly identifying information or ads against a named religious candidate within 60 days of an election should be guilty of a crime for doing so? Or would this be the carve-out/exception in your world of tight government control of political speech?

I'm a liberal. Liberals, by definition, believe in equality under law for all. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of liberalism; and it's the reason conservatives hate liberals.

So no, I would not make an exception for any organizations, atheist or otherwise. I would apply the same campaign rules I listed above. Individuals can say whatever they want. Organizations don't get to because

1. Rights are held by persons, not organizations. (Yes, that's my philosophy and a whole different philosophical debate we can have. Spawn a thread if you want to do so.)
2. Organizations by their very nature must use money to act on anything. And it is money, not speech, that we are restricting. In fact, the money is restricted because that is the only way to protect speech.

As to what punishments for violating campaign law should be, that's something I haven't specified, and I'm quite open on the subject.

Michelle Obama insults young people:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-young-people-are-knuckleheads-which-why-they-need-obamacare_782766.html

zzyzzx says

Michelle Obama insults young people:

The GOP insults the intelligence of the country.

edvard2 says

The GOP insults the intelligence of the country.

Obama insults the intelligence of all taxpayers.

zzyzzx says

Obama insults the intelligence of all taxpayers.

No, its more that Obama challenges the intelligence of the far right.

upisdown says

True, the state must guarantee the payment, but the fund(CALPERS) never once guaranteed any % return, nor could they. They must provide the annuity payments and that could be considered a guarantee, but you making the presumption that they must get X% return is ludicrous, because the the metrics change constantly.

You are totally dodging the main point.

- Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees retirement investments? Why do government employees get to live in a risk free world in terms of their retirement accounts on the backs of tax payers?

Cities like Stockton, San Bernardino, Vallejo, Detroit......are going bankrupt precisely due to the fact that they are having to spend more and more of their operating funds which should be used to maintain infrastructure and schools to pay CALPERS shortfall.

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as well as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the country, is artificially high. Some economists suggest that pension funds, including Calpers, should be using a lower rate to reflect risk-free investments such as the yields paid by U.S. Treasury bonds.

When a pension fund's returns do not meet its projected rate, a shortfall is created. The costs are generally passed onto member cities. This month Calpers' board approved accounting changes requiring state agencies, cities and counties to pay rate hikes of up to 50 percent to cover the fund's shortfall over 30 years."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/us-usa-municipalities-jose-idUSBRE93O15O20130425

socal2 says

You are totally dodging the main point.

And you don't have one.

socal2 says

Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees
retirement investments?

Prove it, if you could, but of course you cannot.

socal2 says

Why do government employees get to live in a risk free world in terms of their
retirement accounts on the backs of tax payers?

Why do you and your echo chamber of idiots, constantly make baseless claims?

socal2 says

Cities like Stockton, San Bernardino, Vallejo, Detroit......are going
bankrupt precisely due to the fact that they are having to spend more and more
of their operating funds which should be used to maintain infrastructure and
schools to pay CALPERS shortfall.

LOL, says you.........some 'expert' on a blog.

socal2 says

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as well
as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the country, is
artificially high.

So, why is it when I repeatedly ask for ANY confirmation of, or PROOF of that supposed 7.5% return from any of the ACTUAL pension fund/s sites, documents, audits, whatever........you and others like you that have made the same BS claims, NEVER, EVER provide ANY proof?????
Why is that?

socal2 says

When a pension fund's returns do not meet its projected rate, a shortfall is
created. The costs are generally passed onto member cities.

LOL, you do realize that almost all funds can and do survive temporary drops in their returns because there's far more people paying than collecting, right? Apparently not.

Will you please start a new thread for this off topic discussion about pension funds? Here is a link to get you started:

"California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension, should consider changing its assumed rate of investment return, its actuary said. Trimming the forecast may add to taxpayer costs.

The rate, now 7.75 percent, is used to calculate how much money the $234 billion fund expects to have and how much it needs to cover benefits promised to workers, as well as the size of annual contributions by state and local government."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

zzyzzx says

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed
war spending?

LOL, the pussy highjacked his own thread, so why are your panties in a bunch over it?

Fisrt I post this:
upisdown says

socal2
says

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as
well
as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the
country, is
artificially high.

So, why is it when I repeatedly ask for ANY confirmation of, or PROOF of that
supposed 7.5% return from any of the ACTUAL pension fund/s sites, documents,
audits, whatever........you and others like you that have made the same BS
claims, NEVER, EVER provide ANY proof?????
Why is that?

And, of course the echo chamber responds with this:

curious2 says

The rate, now 7.75 percent, is used to calculate how much money the $234
billion fund expects to have and how much it needs to cover benefits promised to
workers, as well as the size of annual contributions by state and local
government."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS website.

upisdown says

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS website.

OK, here it is from CalPERS. As of July 2013, the rate was 7.5%, down slightly from the 7.75% rate in effect at the time of the 2012 Bloomberg article:

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/2013/fiscal-year.xml

Now, will you please stop pushing the misleading OP headline to the top of the home page with your sarcastic and uncivil nonsense? I've never been called an echo chamber before, but I'm starting to feel like one as I repeat that you should start a new thread if you want to debate pensions.

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS
website.

Hmmm, I believe the Businessweek article comes from Bloomberg:

But I guess YOU know more economic information then they do, right???

LOL. Yet it's STILL NOT from the CALPERS website, is it?

curious2 says

OK, here it is from Calpers. As of July 2013, the rate was 7.5%, down
slightly from the 7.75% rate in effect at the time of the 2012 Bloomberg
article:

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/2013/fiscal-year.xml

Thank you, but why didn't you just go there(the CALPERS site) originally instead of posting an old, out of date article that more than likely wasn't accurate, unless you wanted to distort or deceive everybody?

upisdown says

why

are you pushing the OP headline, unless you are a total moron in addition to being obviously a sarcastic jerk? You don't need to answer that - we can all see it's both. The Bloomberg article was accurate, presented the debate squarely, and was easier to find than hunting through the CalPERS website.

curious2 says

are you pushing the OP headline, unless you are a total moron in addition to
being obviously a sarcastic jerk? You don't need to answer that - we can all see
it's both. The Bloomberg article was accurate, presented the debate squarely,
and was easier to find than hunting through the CalPERS website.

It's a legitimate question, you chose the site you posted over another site, namely the CALPERS one.

Yes, the bloomberg article WAS accurate.....in 2012. FYI, it's no longer 2012.

Go switch back to your other obnoxious ID, or are you using them at the same time?

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

The "support" of his voters is based only on his campaign promises,

Tell us again, just how did Obama get elected???

My god are you ever fucking stupid. Obama got elected on his campaign promises, and now his approval is waning because he didn't keep the promises. Romney never BECAME president, so he had no opportunity to break any promises. THAT is why the two situations are dissimilar, and should not be compared. Sorry you're having trouble with the concept.

Call it Crazy says

which leads us to:

zzyzzx says

The poll asked those who voted for Obama's reelection a simple question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

The poll DIDN'T ask those who voted for Obama's reelection. That question was only asked of people who voted for Obama AND said they wouldn't vote for him again, which was only 10% of Obama voters.

Is this getting through your thick skull yet? Reading is fundamental.

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

Most people who voted for Obama, myself included, are of the opinion that he's a bit of a disappointment.

But you question the results of the poll??? Really????

Actually, I don't question the results of the poll. I'm saying the results were inaccurately reported in the 3rd hand article the OP posted.

Again, your reading skills are deplorable. Work on that.

Dan8267 says

Paralithodes says

Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Or (d) I thought of something else that you didn't because I think more clearly.

None of this changes that your call to overturn the CU decision would result in PACs having more power: Small organizations without enough money to afford a PAC would be silenced while those organizations wealthy enough to afford a PAC could still do what they want. Reading the actual decision instead of relying on MSNBC and Comedy Central would have made you informed of this.

Dan8267 says

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

You need to be specific and clear about what claim you are asking me to verify or contradict. Your writings are often not clear. In this case, I have no idea what claim you are making. The statement "Citizen's Unit was correct." is a meaningless statement to me as it is a statement about the correctness of a court opinion. ... [insert additional blather here addressing blatant taking of partial quote out of context...]

As above, the full quote was "...ACLU and CU was correct," Not simply "CU was correct." My request was a repeat of an earlier request for you to acknowledge that the ACLU supported the CU decision .... which was in response to your request for an apology after I initially made this claim.

Therefore, either (a) your memory, comprehension, and ability to think clearly are quite deficient compared to what you think they are, or (b) you are intentionally dodging, and doing so dishonestly by using partial quotes out of context. Using a typical Dan approach: it is one reason or the other.

You claimed that only the rich (assumedly that is, those richer than the super 1% rich like yourself) and the republicans support CU. I added that the ACLU also supported CU and provided direct evidence. You were incorrect.

You claimed that the CU decision overturned disclosure rules. You were wrong - the CU decision upheld them. I provided a link to the ruling for you as evidence.

Since you are the type of person to expect an apology when you think someone else gets something wrong, then you should acknowledge without qualification that you were wrong about both of your assertions above. Not acknowledging your mistakes here would show that your superior intelligence and ability to think clearly does not trump a religious-like grasp to your own beliefs despite having the facts provided right in front of your face. Any further attempt to misquote out of context to dodge away from this would show the same.

upisdown says

socal2 says

Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees

retirement investments?

Prove it, if you could, but of course you cannot.

What are you asking me to prove?

Are you really debating (or totally unaware) that the vast majority of government employees who have pensions have a GUARANTEED payout return regardless of market performance? When the market doesn't perform, the City/State has to use our tax money to pitch in the rest.

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return.

dublin hillz says

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return

Pension funds are always nearly 100% invested in the stock market, despite all of the in and outflows of cash? No balancing of assets to account for different levels of risk?

Paralithodes says

dublin hillz says

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return

Pension funds are always nearly 100% invested in the stock market, despite all of the in and outflows of cash? No balancing of assets to account for different levels of risk?

No, they usually have between 40-50% in equities depending on size of the plan which actually means that short term risk is less than if they were all in equities.

http://www.towerswatson.com/en-US/Insights/Newsletters/Americas/insider/2013/2012-asset-allocations-in-fortune-1000-pension-plans

If you look at fidelity, their 50% stock asset allocation fund has returned 8.41% per year since inception and that's with expense ratio baked in. I am sure that pension funds have way better expense ratios which points again to the fact that assumed 7.5% return is not unrealistic in the long run.

If Obama can't get the gullible 18-20 year olds fooled to go vote (D), he really isn't going to do well.

He did play it smart in the first election, got the young once early on... and he knows he's got most of them for at least 10-15 years before they mature up to understand his BS and vote Republican instead.

dublin hillz says

If you look at fidelity, their 50% stock asset allocation fund has returned 8.41% per year since inception and that's with expense ratio baked in. I am sure that pension funds have way better expense ratios which points again to the fact that assumed 7.5% return is not unrealistic in the long run.

If you believe that past performance guarantees future results, then the solution is obvious: convert the pension plan from defined benefit to defined contribution. Past performance shows a higher return, so beneficiaries should come out ahead, but the state will no longer be liable as guarantor. OTOH, if you believe that past performance does not guarantee future results, then the liability causes concerns. For example, if you look at the period 1966-1982, or the more famous period 1929-1954, you see long periods with low returns. Looking ahead, we cannot know if the period 2014-2034 might resemble the period 1993-2013, or 1929-1949, or something in between, or something better or worse than either.

dublin hillz says

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return.

The problem with the guarantee is when we have market downturns we see cities having to declare bankruptcy because they can't keep up with the pension shortfall payments along with their other liabilities. And since goofy California allowed the unions to enshrine these pension plans in the State Constitution, services get cut and taxes get raised on us plebes before they reform the biggest city liability (pensions).

Look at Vallejo getting ready to declare bankruptcy AGAIN because the first time around a few years ago they just raised taxes and cut services.......leaving the pensions in tact.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/01/usa-municipality-vallejo-idUSL2N0HM05C20131001

The tax payer is getting hit with both ends with increased taxes and reduced services just to prop up these unsustainable gold-plated union retirement plans.

curious2 says

upisdown
says

why

are you pushing the OP headline, unless you are a total moron in addition to
being obviously a sarcastic jerk? You don't need to answer that - we can all see
it's both. The Bloomberg article was accurate, presented the debate squarely,
and was easier to find than hunting through the CalPERS website.

The liar has an agenda.

Bm05211983 says

Obama is a dumb nigger. Of course they regret it

Really? that Mick-pedo haircut gives you that much courage?

curious2 says

If you believe that past performance guarantees future results, then the
solution is obvious: convert the pension plan from defined benefit to defined
contribution. Past performance shows a higher return, so beneficiaries should
come out ahead, but the state will no longer be liable as guarantor. OTOH, if
you believe that past performance does not guarantee future results, then the
liability causes concerns. For example, if you look at the period 1966-1982, or
the more famous period 1929-1954, you see long periods with low returns. Looking
ahead, we cannot know if the period 2014-2034 might resemble the period
1993-2013, or 1929-1949, or something in between, or something better or worse
than either.

Yeah, but it's pretty obvious that you're a liar.

...

Bm05211983 says

Obama is a dumb nigger. Of course they regret it

Really, but at least he doesn't look like a pedophile Mick from san fran, right?

I have to ask, is that a 'perm'? LOL

Bm05211983 says

Obama is a dumb nigger. Of course they regret it

Ooh! Stylistic error on that one. Let me fix it for you:

I'm not racist, but Obama's a dumb nigger.

Much better!

Paralithodes says

None of this changes that your call to overturn the CU decision would result in PACs having more power

Wrong. One can both invalidate the legal standing that corporations are people with the same rights as people, and one can enact campaign finance reform legislation as I have proposed.

Paralithodes says

My request was a repeat of an earlier request for you to acknowledge that the ACLU supported the CU decision

1. Organizations do not have opinions or values and do not make decisions. Individuals make decisions and hold opinions. The statement the ACLU supported the CU decision is meaningless.

The article was written by some ACLU member(s) on the behalf of the official position of the ACLU on campaign finance reform. This means that the article reflects the beliefs of the majority of the leadership of the ACLU.

2. The article does not imply that all of the leadership of the ACLU agrees with the position.

3. Nor does the article imply that all members of the ACLU agree with the position.

An organization is a collective of persons who agree on some things and disagree on other.

4. The article does not state that the ACLU's position is that the Citizen's United decision is correct. You are simply reading in what you want into the article. The only thing the article mentions about Citizen's United is what the ruling was and that it is a controversial ruling.

The article then continues to talk about the general problem of campaign finance and the ACLU's position on the issue, which is...

5. The ACLU's official position is

[T]he ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

This position is inconsistent with the status quo under Citizen's United. This position isn't the one I've taken, but...

6. I am under no obligation to agree with the official ACLU position on everything. I agree with the ACLU about 95% of the time, but I can and do disagree with some of their positions. Hell, I doubt there are too many members of the ACLU who agree with the organization's position more than 95% of the time; and that's a good thing.

For example, the ACLU banned communists from being leaders and staff members back in the 1940s, including some of its founding members. This was a hypocritical response to the Red Scare and fear that the ACLU would be branded communists and witch hunted if they didn't. In other words, they sacrificed their principles for practicality. It's debatable whether or not this was the right thing to do. I do not agree with the decision.

7. Appeal to authority means nothing to a rational person. Even if the ACLU held the position you falsely claim it does, that would not validate the position.

So get your panties out of a bunch. Nothing you have presented contradicts the validity of my arguments.

Paralithodes says

Therefore, either (a) your memory, comprehension, and ability to think clearly are quite deficient compared to what you think they are, or (b) you are intentionally dodging, and doing so dishonestly by using partial quotes out of context. Using a typical Dan approach: it is one reason or the other.

Or (c), you are full of bullshit for the seven reasons I mentioned above and your slanderous remarks are nothing more than unfounded name-calling, the lowest level of the argument pyramid.

I'll grant that you have gone to extensive effort to try to paint me into a corner, but it was simply foolish for you to think you could do that. First, there are no internal contradictions in my philosophies, which is a lot more than you can say of yours. I attack every idea I have thoroughly before accepting it.

Second, if I were to ever find or be shown a contradiction in my philosophies, I would find and remove the flaw immediately even if the conclusions of the revised philosophy are the anti-thesis of the previous one. In terms a simpleton like yourself might understand, I would gladly flip-flop to the polar opposite position of my current position if evidence or reasoning gave cause to do so. It's damn easy to be on the right side of an argument when you are not married to any position and are willing to change when positions when a better one comes.

Paralithodes says

You claimed that only the rich (assumedly that is, those richer than the super 1% rich like yourself) and the republicans support CU.

I have never made such a statement, which is exactly why you will not quote such a statement now.

How dumb must a person be to not realize that you can't get away with false statement about what other people said on a public forum in which everything written can be linked to and quoted? It's like a politician still thinking he can say one thing to one group and a contradicting thing to another group and not get caught in an age where everything is being recorded. It's just plain stupid.

Paralithodes says

Since you are the type of person to expect an apology when you think someone else gets something wrong, then you should acknowledge without qualification that you were wrong about both of your assertions above. Not acknowledging your mistakes here would show that your superior intelligence and ability to think clearly does not trump a religious-like grasp to your own beliefs despite having the facts provided right in front of your face. Any further attempt to misquote out of context to dodge away from this would show the same.

Translation: Despite the fact that I have offered no evidence to support my assertions that Dan was wrong, I am going to try to intimidate him into not refuting what I said by calling it a "dodge", and by dodge, I mean evidence-based refutation. Hopefully, he'll be intimidated by my assertions that he's wrong and any attempt to show otherwise must be disingenuous and he'll just back down. Of course, if he calls my bluff, I'm shit out of luck.

Dan8267 says

Wrong. One can both invalidate the legal standing that corporations are people with the same rights as people, and one can enact campaign finance reform legislation as I have proposed.

Wrong. Overturning CU is not the same as enacting campaign finance reform as you have proposed. Therefore, overturning CU would give any organization wealthy enough to afford a PAC relatively more power than any organization not wealthy enough to afford one. Your proposals have absolutely nothing to do with it in the real world.

Dan8267 says

1. Organizations do not have opinions or values and do not make decisions. Individuals make decisions and hold opinions. The statement the ACLU supported the CU decision is meaningless.

And therefore using your own logic, so is such a blanket statement such as ....
Dan8267 says

Oh, and guess who supports Citizens United? Republicans and rich parasites.

... Since people from the ACLU, some Democrats, and others supported the CU decision, and some Republicans do not. Indeed, the law that CU partially overturned was co-sponsored by a Republican if you recall.

Dan8267 says

The entire point of Citizens United was to prevent YOU and everyone else from knowing where campaign contributions come from and go to.

COMPLETELY WRONG / FACTUALLY INCORRECT - SEE SOURCE

If you want honest, accurate reporting of lobbying dollars, Citizens United must be overturned.

DELUSIONALLY WRONG / FACTUALLY INCORRECT - SEE SOURCE

Dan8267 says

Paralithodes says

You claimed that only the rich (assumedly that is, those richer than the super 1% rich like yourself) and the republicans support CU.

I have never made such a statement, which is exactly why you will not quote such a statement now.

No, you never used the word "only" - you simply implied "only," given your lecture to others about using generalities about group views on positions. Since you then used groups - incorrectly as described above - you must have meant all of them. As far as you being rich. Certainly at the least you were at one point, for at least one year, utterly filthy rich in a manner that the average CEO could only dream about, given your claim to have had a net effective federal income tax rate of 33% or more. Either that or you were a bald faced liar.

Dan8267 says

Translation: Despite the fact that I have offered no evidence to support my assertions that Dan was wrong,

All the eDan8267 says

In terms a simpleton like yourself might understand, I would gladly flip-flop to the polar opposite position of my current position if evidence or reasoning gave cause to do so.

LOL! The evidence that you are wrong about the CU was provided right to you - I gave you a link to the decision itself. Therefore, you were provided the evidence, yet doubled down in your typical fashion by starting to write a novel in response.

There's no need for me to paint you into a corner - you do very well at that all by yourself. The fact of the matter is that you were wrong about what CU was about, you were provided a direct link to the evidence, yet still dodge by focusing on only one little portion, attempting to filibuster after your intentional misquote was pointed out.

I realize that you'll continue to try to weasel out of this, so I respond for any other single person with a shred of objectivity who, even if they still disagree with the CU decision for various reasons, at least can be informed about what it really is, unlike yourself. You can have the last words on this - Nothing you can say can unpaint yourself from your little corner, but have fun typing several pages of text trying.

Paralithodes says

Dan8267 says

Wrong. One can both invalidate the legal standing that corporations are people with the same rights as people, and one can enact campaign finance reform legislation as I have proposed.

Wrong. Overturning CU is not the same as enacting campaign finance reform as you have proposed.

Are you even capable of reading English text? Where exactly in the quote above do I even remotely suggest that overturning Citizens United is the same thing as enacting my campaign finance reform ideas? Hell, my statement implies that they are different things.

You need to stop arguing until you learn how to comprehend what you read. You just accused me of being wrong about something I never said. Geeze...

Paralithodes says

And therefore using your own logic, so is such a blanket statement such as ....

Dan8267 says

Oh, and guess who supports Citizens United? Republicans and rich parasites.

... Since people from the ACLU, some Democrats, and others supported the CU decision, and some Republicans do not. Indeed, the law that CU partially overturned was co-sponsored by a Republican if you recall.

Clearly the statement "Republicans and rich parasites support Citizens United" is not meaningless. Do I really have to explain how to parse that statement?

Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate that anyone from the ACLU supports the decision. The article from the ACLU clearly does not endorse the opinions of the Supreme Court; it merely rejects the idea of limiting campaign contributions. That's a big cry from interpreting legal corporations as "people" with all the same rights.

As for some Democrats supporting unlimited campaign contributions and some Republicans opposing it, what does that have to do with the price of beans? The Republicans overwhelmingly like the idea of unlimited dark money driving elections since they benefit from it. The American public, however, is sick of this system of open bribery.
Paralithodes says

COMPLETELY WRONG / FACTUALLY INCORRECT - SEE SOURCE

I've already addressed this issue. Using all caps doesn't reinforce your argument or counter mine.

Dan8267 says

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-consequences-citizens-united

One of the biggest independent spenders is conservative Super PAC American Crossroads, along with its affiliated dark money group Crossroads GPS. In early 2012 the Super PAC, which is required to report its donors, raised only 20% of the affiliated organizations’ donations. GPS, the dark money arm permitted to keep its donors’ identities secret, raised the other 80%.

Using all caps does not erase this evidence. Nor does repeated your arguments after they have been thoroughly refuted and debunked.

Paralithodes says

No, you never used the word "only" - you simply implied "only,"

Honey, I don't imply shit. I explicitly state shit. I don't do subtle.

When I argue against you or anyone else, I go straight to your central argument using a frontal assault. I'm as subtle as Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball. You don't have to read between the lines. If I think you're an idiot, I'll say you’re an idiot. By the way, you're an idiot.

Paralithodes says

federal income tax rate of 33%

1. I'm not going to show you my tax returns no matter how much you beg. All you need to know is that I earned all my wealth by creating much more wealth; I didn't acquire wealth at the expense of others through zero sum games.

2. You don't have to be rich to pay a marginal rate of 33%, especially if you are single, have no kids, and no mortgage.

3. Even if I am "filly rich", I've always stated that it isn't having money that makes people bad, it's how they got it. People who create wealth like Tim Berners-Lee deserve to be rich. People who parasitically siphon wealth from others, especially through zero sum games, like Lloyd Blankfein don't deserve to be rich.

4. My personal life and personal situation is irrelevant to this conversation. The fact that you are making it personal shows a lack of ability to address the subject of the conversation. The messenger is irrelevant. All that matters is the message itself. The fact that I am the one coming up with arguments in favor of campaign finance reform is irrelevant to those arguments.

Paralithodes says

LOL! The evidence that you are wrong about the CU was provided right to you - I gave you a link to the decision itself. Therefore, you were provided the evidence, yet doubled down in your typical fashion by starting to write a novel in response.

You obviously did not read the replies in which I showed you were wrong along with the evidence. I've linked to those replies in this post. Try again. Repeating defeated arguments does not resurrect them.

Paralithodes says

There's no need for me to paint you into a corner - you do very well at that all by yourself. The fact of the matter is that you were wrong about what CU was about, you were provided a direct link to the evidence, yet still dodge by focusing on only one little portion, attempting to filibuster after your intentional misquote was pointed out.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-ZDewhEHKD0

Dan8267 says

1. Organizations do not have opinions or values and do not make decisions. Individuals make decisions and hold opinions. The statement the ACLU supported the CU decision is meaningless.

Dropped by Paralithodes.

Dan8267 says

2. The article does not imply that all of the leadership of the ACLU agrees with the position.

Dropped

Dan8267 says

3. Nor does the article imply that all members of the ACLU agree with the position.

An organization is a collective of persons who agree on some things and disagree on other.

Dropped

Dan8267 says

4. The article does not state that the ACLU's position is that the Citizen's United decision is correct. You are simply reading in what you want into the article. The only thing the article mentions about Citizen's United is what the ruling was and that it is a controversial ruling.

Dropped

Dan8267 says

5. The ACLU's official position is

Dropped

Dan8267 says

6. I am under no obligation to agree with the official ACLU position on everything.

Dropped

Dan8267 says

7. Appeal to authority means nothing to a rational person.

Dropped

For a person who drops the vast majority of his opposition's points, Paralithodes is sure quick to claim victory.

OK, I'll do one more response regarding CU, then it is all yours again...Dan8267 says

That's a big cry from interpreting legal corporations as "people" with all the same rights.

Above is just one more solid piece of evidence that (a) Dan has not read the CU decision and is doing nothing more than parroting talking an incorrect talking point from others, or (b) Dan is intentionally, like others, warping the meaning of words in a thoroughly dishonest way to make them fit his narrative and incite anger about his cause in others. I'll go with (a) in this case.

Thanks once again Dan for showing me and anyone else here who takes the time to read the actual CU decision vs. relying on talking points of others, that you simply don't know shit other than how to parrot others on this issue.

For a person who drops the vast majority of his opposition's points, Paralithodes is sure quick to claim victory.

No point in following dishonest or illogical people down their rabbit holes, especially when they use a combination of convoluted twisting of words to weasel out of acknowledging errors or inconsistencies, especially when the "vast majority of [your] points" were only sub-points about the least important three main points to begin with (I understand of course why you want to focus on that one - because you can dance around words and you can't answer the other points).... So... why not go back to the main points ... You were wrong about CU's conclusions, period. No amount of twisting, dodging, redirection, projection, attempted clever abuse of language and words, or attempting to focus on the minutia of the least important (the degree to which the ACLU or people in it - and you still get this wrong anyway) will change that. You were simply wrong about the facts of CU and you are neither man nor mature enough to admit it.

Dan8267 says

2. You don't have to be rich to pay a marginal rate of 33%, especially if you are single, have no kids, and no mortgage.

In that thread we were not discussing the marginal rate, we were discussing the net effective tax rate, and this was clarified in that very thread. It was YOU who was comparing Romney's NET EFFECTIVE FEDERAL INCOME TAX rate with your own, and you clarified to others, upon request, that you were referring to YOUR OWN net effective federal income tax rate, NOT your marginal rate.

Therefore, you are now 100% trapped in a lie (or utter ignorance) either way from that thread, and 100% trapped into dishonest misrepresentation now. No amount of filibustering, non-sequitur, 3-page novel you type in response will change this. Thanks again for these valuable clarifications of your honesty.