patrick.net

Vicente wrote: "For the last 2-3 decades we ran this “trickle-down” experiment. The claim was if we gave tax cuts to the rich, it would all trickle down and EVERYONE would become wealthier. I was a staunch Republican for quite a long time, and I can say the wool pulled over my eyes was convincing and seductive, but it was hogwash. "

Vicente, I have had many airplane cocktail conversations with "former republicans who see the light" and then in the discussion it's revealed that they're bigger leftists than Nader. So pardon me if I'm a bit doubtful of your former "staunch Republican" claim.

Anyways, I'm amused at how leftists claim to that the origin of their belief is this "help the working Joe" when their agenda is to discriminate against working men and then pay welfare mothers to gestate children into poverty and then import impovershed people to drive down wages. How is that working out for making America become like Sweden? (then again, based upon the last election, Sweden isn't going to look like "Sweden" for long...)

Sigh, I remember growing up reading about how leftists were great scientific and cultural minds and wanted a futurama where we all had flying cars. Instead, they're crazy hippies in the forest eating granola (or hippocrites driving cars with bumper stickers saying they hate cars) and afraid of anything "artificial" while they wear Ipods made in China. And they're the "elites!"

Bap33 says

Beating Russia into submission was not cheap.

? The Soviet Union imploded due to its economic system being totally unworkable. No beatings were administered nor were they required. Pepsi, The Scorpions, and the Apple II did more to torpedo Marxist-Leninism than anything Reagan did. (Though Reagan does deserve props for the Berlin Wall speech.)

Why do conservatives always hold the greatest faith in the power and threat of Communism? I was just a wee lad at the time but even then i could sense that it was going to fall apart eventually.

PolishKnight says

I’m sure that’s of small comfort to the people who aren’t in the top tax bracket including… lots of dual professional married leftist wonks living in blue state regions who often fit into the $250K range

A married couple earning $250,000 is facing a $100/mo greater tax bill if Clinton's top 2 brackets are restored. Please take your bullshit somewhere else.

"Barry Goldwater in the 1960’s."

Barry Goldwater was about as "extremist" as GW Bush which is to say, not that much. Indeed, GW favored amnesty for illegal immigrants, pushed through a massive bailout (that Barack Hussein Obama and other Democrats happily voted for), more money for teachers' unions, favored racist hiring preferences against whites and men, the list goes on. Yet, GW was hated by the left as a "right wing extremist" since the day of his inauguration.

Barry Goldwater supported pro-abortion rights, gay rights, and was a friend of JFK. While not a liberal, he certainly wasn't the strongest conservative around at that time or ours.

It's safe to say that the left has said that EVERY Republican candidate is an "extremist" since all people who disagree with the left are, by their definition, "extremists" and "bigots".

PolishKnight says

GW was hated by the left as a “right wing extremist” since the day of his inauguration.

It was all the religious bullshit that got to me. Stem Cell funding ban, Office of Faith-based Initiatives, and that God thing telling him to take out Saddam, too.

Roberts and Alito were also special gifts we'll have to live with for a long time. Thanks, Ralph!

"Stem Cell funding ban"

Er, don't you mean FETAL stem cell funding ban? You know, not ADULT stem cells that actually were already producing cures. And the funding ban wasn't against states or private enterprise. They could throw their money away (like California) as much as they wanted.

"religious bullshit"

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Martin Luther King... 'nuff said.

I honestly believe watching TV destroys brain cells. I've observed older people over the years that spend a lot of time in front of the box and they all pretty much appear to be programmed brain dead zombies. Maybe that explains why Obama received such a high percentage of the vote? Interesting thought. When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad we put that idiot box in the trash years ago.

Troy claims: "A married couple earning $250,000 is facing a $100/mo greater tax bill if Clinton’s top 2 brackets are restored. Please take your bullshit somewhere else."

Let's reverse that: If the money isn't that much for the $250K bracket as we keep hearing... then why doesn't the left just raise the bracket to $500K or so? (Or cancel the plan to let blue state "rich" off the hook)

Sorry if I don't take my "bullshit" somewhere else. I know how wrong it is for people to have opinions outside the leftist orthodoxy...

"Wonderful things happen when prices of home drop back to normal."

Why would this have any relationship to home prices?

PolishKnight says

Anyways, I’m amused at how leftists claim to that the origin of their belief is this “help the working Joe”

PolishKnight says

Sigh, I remember growing up reading about how leftists were great scientific and cultural minds and wanted a futurama where we all had flying cars

I see you've got the strawman machine up and running this morning...

RayAmerica says

I honestly believe watching TV destroys brain cells. I’ve observed older people over the years that spend a lot of time in front of the box and they all pretty much appear to be programmed brain dead zombies. Maybe that explains why Obama received such a high percentage of the vote?

I think McCain won the older vote pretty handily so I don't think so.

PolishKnight says

Vicente, I have had many airplane cocktail conversations with “former republicans who see the light” and then in the discussion it’s revealed that they’re bigger leftists than Nader. So pardon me if I’m a bit doubtful of your former “staunch Republican” claim.

You're right. I could claim to be anything on the internet. I cannot PROVE to you that I voted straight Republican from 1980 to 2008. I suspect you are a granola-eating pot-smoking hippy who is trolling for amusement, but cannot prove that either. And where does this lead? Nowhere.

New Definitions for old words...

Thespians: A dysfunctional family

Vicente, I wasn't casting doubt whimsically. I really have encountered people who claimed to be "conservatives" and "republicans until recently" and then when I delved deeper into discussions with them, they revealed opinions that belonged in the green party.

If I'm a "trolling" hippy then I'm putting on a long act rather than just playing with a label. You can't "prove" to me that you voted straight republican until 2008 BUT... I do find it suspicious that you would switch for Obama but not for Gore, Kerry, or even Clinton for that matter. If someone such as McCain was unpalatable to a straight voting Republican compared to Obama, why not Clinton versus GBush I? A LOT of Republicans broke off of GB I over the "read my lips, no new taxes pledge".

So sure, I can't _disprove_ your claims either but I find them "special" to say the least.

"I see you’ve got the strawman machine up and running this morning…"

Works better than a Volt! :-)

"As for me, I’d rather make $400k and pay 50% in tax, than make $40k and pay no tax.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilization… and Liberty, to paraphrase John Locke."

How about 50% taxes on $40K income?

To quote Franklin (I think), those who give up liberty for a little more security wind up with neither. Just remember when you go to France or Sweden to rent a vehicle with a car alarm...

PolishKnight says

“Barry Goldwater in the 1960’s.”
Barry Goldwater was about as “extremist” as GW Bush which is to say, not that much.

Nonsense. Goldwater was THE ultraconservative in his day. The NeoCons would prefer to revise history of course since his views do not fit the "new truth" post-1980 since he did not kowtow to the religious fundamentalists, his views being centered on fiscal conservatism and liberty but largely secular and expansive for public policy. The GOP of the time considered him so extreme and unelectable they propped up Rockefeller and other weak candidates and generally tried to undermine his campaign.

I have more respect for Goldwater the more I read about him. I don't agree with his every view, but he wasn't the sort of pandering sycophant that either Bush was.

if you make $400k .. and a gallon of milk costs $40K, and a gallon of gas costs $60K, and everyone on your block is on welfare and gets free milk and gas and so many benefits that welfare pays as well as a $800K job .... in that case I'm pretty sure that $400K (at any taxed rate) of which you speak is not all that good a spot to be, it is?

Bap33 says

if you make $400k .. and a gallon of milk costs $40K, and a gallon of gas costs $60K, and everyone on your block is on welfare and gets free milk and gas and so many benefits that welfare pays as well as a $800K job …. in that case I’m pretty sure that $400K (at any taxed rate) of which you speak is not all that good a spot to be, it is?

But if the moon was made of cheese and corvettes grew on trees, then I might be OK with $400K. Right?

It's ironic that your claim that the "neocons" would like to revise history and say he was not the ultra conservative of the day when it's actually Republicans such as RR who revered him and regarded him as such. In any case, the term "neocon" is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren't what you claim to be. It's like someone saying they're some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

That said, Eisenhower seems to have fumed when Goldwater said something nasty about him but a similar thing happened with GBI and RR via "Voodoo economics."

Could you please elaborate, if you're a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him "extremist" and caused fellow republicans to back away from him? Was it his advocacy of limited government? How extreme (almost as bad as quoting the constitution! :-) Or was it his "extremism" in his agreeing with a nuclear policy that JFK and pretty much every other president including LBJ signed off on?

PolishKnight says

Vicente, I wasn’t casting doubt whimsically. I really have encountered people who claimed to be “conservatives” and “republicans until recently” and then when I delved deeper into discussions with them, they revealed opinions that belonged in the green party.

According to YOU they belonged in the Green Party. If you take them at their word, which I see no reason not to, they voted Republican. In Ronald "Big Tent" Reagan's day, there was room in the party for variances, unlike now. You could be gay or non-Christian or recycle your bottles and cans, yet still legitimately identify as Republican. Now if you are not 100% toeing every line, you are at best a RINO. A "useful idiot" to be tolerated, but denigrated. Ultimately this sort of thing is what drove me out. I'd suggest instead of letting just any old Schmoe register as Republican, there be a PURITY TEST and perhaps an oath, so you can keep people with "environmentalist leanings" and other such deviants out.

BAP33, I'm reminded of when I was visiting a friend in Switzerland and chatting with a student who was from Amsterdam. He spoke very good English and at the end of the conversation, he tried to bum money from me.

I also went around to different stations and was regularly approached or asked for money by reasonably well dressed beggars. It was weird. I mean, when I go to a train station and get people bothering me for change (Change! Vote for Change! :-) , I usually expect them to be a bit harder down on their luck.

In any case, based upon what I see on European TV and Russia Today, it appears that this lifestyle is on it's way down there. If you go through DeGalle, be prepared to experience some random strike and don't even think about going to Greece. It took a while with their racist anti-immigration policies to see the collapse, but it's coming in about 20 years and the cracks are showing. Good thing I qualify for Polish citizenship!

PolishKnight says

Could you please elaborate, if you’re a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him “extremist” and caused fellow republicans to back away from him?

Generally speaking he was straight John Birch material. I think it was William F. Buckley who convinced him to keep the John Birch Society at arms' length, but it was pretty obvious from things he said like "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." that containment wasn't enough. Much like when Reagan made a similar comment on a live mike, it made a lot of moderate people shit-scared that he'd push The Button. That he might be enough of a loose cannon to consider nuclear war a desirable first action in office. There were other factors at play, but that's one that comes to mind. Yes, that Goldwater, what a flaming pansy liberal!

I searched for the exact source of the "let's lob one into the kremlin" and couldn't find it so I suspect it's probably something he said in a backroom somewhere. Did this REALLY convince people he was a gun-toting "extremist" or was this mere Democrat rhetoric in their election campaign? As I pointed out, his policy on MADD was no different than that of "extremist" JFK...

I'm amused, BTW, that the campaign the left hated when Eisenhower used the "It's time for a change" as simplistic was picked up recently by Obama and hailed as genius. All that's old is new again...

You can dispute my opinion as to whether these self-proclaimed republicans belonged in the green party, but that's just based upon the various positions they held including racial preferences, anti-constitutional gun rights, socialism, and feminism to name a few. Was there room in the republican party of the reagan era for those views? I guess so. Certainly in the liberal Northeast which hated Goldwater. But... it doesn't make much sense for someone to hold those views and vote for Reagan or even GBI/II when they are much more closely matched to the Democrat or Green party. Is the republican party MORE anti-gay than during the 80's? I highly doubt it since, as you know, BOTH parties today had presidential candidates who were publically opposed to gay marriage. I don't know if Reagan's big tent "welcomed republicans" but I welcome you showing me so!

Regarding the "purity test". I notice that most pictures or cartoons from the left bashing the rich tend to feature white males and bashing white males is popular with the left even as they claim that racism and sexism are the worst things in the world. It's a funny stance for a party that wants to make the USA more like France or Sweden but this is because non-whites and women were most useful as constituencies for the welfare state. At one time, working class white males were the lead marxist constituency group but times change. I'm sure they'll change again, say, in France when the courts say that it's a human rights violation to stop women from wearing burkas...

PolishKnight says

In any case, the term “neocon” is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren’t what you claim to be. It’s like someone saying they’re some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

AFAICR the NeoConservative label label came in with Karl "The Architect" Rove, describing his generation taking over and reforming. I suppose back in the old days I'd describe myself more as a William F. Buckley sort of Republican, not the Sarah Palin sort at all. That was another of my breaking points, when I realized the party had degenerated so far that it had become a requirement to worship morons and you had to hide any education or intelligence you might have or be suspect. Again your response is precisely what I mean, you keep fishing around trying to show i "wasn't conservative enough" to deserve checking off Republican as my affiliation. I must have been sort of closet Lib-mole or something, you'll find it if you inspect my writings close enough....

marcus says

theoakman says

A “good investor” would have missed out on all those gigantic gains I made in mining stocks.

The typical investor isn’t nearly as brilliant as you. Hey, we can’t all have the kind of insight that you do.
theoakman says

A lot of the financial communities definition of low risk is USTbills earning 2%. If you asked me, they are the riskiest assets that exist today outside of Japanese Bonds earning 0%.

Cruisin for a …
Or as my Aunt used to say, “you just have to live a while.” For any of you old time traders out there, what would be better for this guy in the long run ? To be right ? Or to be wrong ?

There wasn't any incredible brilliance behind my investments. In 2008 and 2009, everyone ran for the doors and literally piled into worthless US T-bills paying 2%. Meanwhile, there were companies out there producing essential commodities and goods that had dividend yields of 10-15% after those dividends were slashed 50%! I guess people really did believe we wouldn't be buying oil from these companies ever again. Why on earth would someone buy a US Tbill that earns 2% when they can buy a stock/trust that earns 10-15%? Because they thought the world was going to end. Gold was a no brainer. People cannot get it through their heads that it was undervalued on a historical basis because they sit in front of their computer and stare at the 1980 high of $890 which lasted all of 12 minutes. Furthermore, gold and silver stocks took over an 80% hit on the downswing in 2008. People on this board were screaming for $300 gold when it dipped near $700. My thesis was simple. Gold was going to $2000, Silver was going to $50. Mining stocks were down 80% from the peak when gold hit 1000 in March of 2008. If you believed that gold was even going to hit $900 again, how could you not buy into that? This wasn't complicated. Buy the big the dip and hold. That's all investors had to do. Yet for some reason, people were screaming "cash is king" while the S&P rose 60%.

Fast forward to today. Several mining stocks are significantly higher than they were prior to the crash in 2008. All losses were erased. They are leveraged to the price of gold and we haven't even come close to my original price target. Every single aspect of the market that drove gold to today's price is still in effect. Not only that, but those fundamentals are only increasing in magnitude.

Debt? Up
Monetary Expansion? Check
Unemployment? Here to stay
Quantitative Easing? Doesn't work but they'll keep trying
Interest Rates? Not much more downside there

Anyone that simply claims that gold/silver have been driven purely by speculation has not backed up those claims and the results have contradicted these claims for about 5 straight years. If gold was a speculative bubble, it would have been completely unwound during the deleveraging of 2008.

PolishKnight says

Let’s reverse that: If the money isn’t that much for the $250K bracket as we keep hearing…

This is pretty simple math even for a moron like you.

Let's look at the $250,000 taxable income example.

Todays 33% bracket starts $209,250 so that's $40,750 into the bracket that's going to be subject to Clintonian confiscation by us leftists.

The 300 basis point tax rise on this marginal income will exact an additional $1,222.50 in taxes. Since you're obviously too stupid to do the math from here let me divide that out for you: $1222.50 / 12 = $101.88.

If you still have any problems with this math I'll try to explain it in smaller words for you.

then why doesn’t the left just raise the bracket to $500K or so? (Or cancel the plan to let blue state “rich” off the hook

We could add more brackets and stuff but Obama here is being conservative by reducing the change to the system since people certainly don't like change or any confusion these days.

PolishKnight says

Sorry if I don’t take my “bullshit” somewhere else. I know how wrong it is for people to have opinions outside the leftist orthodoxy…

Being utterly wrong about everything is not heroic. it makes you a moron.

Next time you want to keep your tax cuts try not to start trillion-dollar wars for no good reason.

If gold hits 2k and silver hits 50 - I'm cashing out and buying that damn boat.

I bought PM's a couple years ago assuming this may happen someday, but wow, we're about to blow through $1300 here real soon.

I bought 100 of these right here at about $14 a piece a ways back : http://www.apmex.com/Product/44447/1_oz_999_Fine_Silver_Rounds___Buffalo.aspx

Right after the purchase, I thought, why did I buy rounds... (I always got either SAE's, maples or philharmonics)... they were just so cheap at the time - couldn't pass em up. But man - over $22 for a silver round? Hard to believe.

Nomo: where the hell have you been? Kate & Jon were divorced after she was a psycho-bitch for however many years they were married, but not before they had a buttload of kids and moved from a normal neighborhood house to an estate in BFE.

Their show used to be filled with videos of cute little kids destroying a house with the nanny & kate present, until Jon quit his job so he could sit on a couch with his wife and let her criticize him while he counted the dollars that poured in. The kids whined alot and cried even more while their parents ignored the shit outta them. They appeared to enjoy the camera men/sound crew/producers, tho and probably called them "mama" & "dada."

Then, Jon was in the tabloids because he had an affair & his girlfriend's family was paid thou$ands of dollars to narc on him. They got divorced, Kate got the show and is now famous for being famous (ala Paris Hilton, except kate isn't as classy hahahaha). Kate went on to such career highs as "Dancing with the Stars" which should be called "wasting an hour watching pathetic attention-seeking people." I'm not sure who's watching the kids, probably the camera men/sound crew/producers...

It's the American Dream.
(elliemae wipes a tear from her eyes...)

Sadly, the popularity of reality television precedes the writer's strike. Look no further than American Idol, which has been around since 2002, and Survivor, which has been around since 2000. American Idol isn't that different from Star Search and lots of old shows, but the change in American reality television seems to stem from the popularity of The Real World, first broadcast in 1992. Once The Real World established that no talent or ability was needed for ratings, that people just wanted to watch people behave in bizarre manner and talk about each other behind each others' backs, modern reality television was born.

MAybe the 4-5 times increase of your rule is correct but it took a little longer this time 9 years. Gold was 260 or so in 2000 - 2001. In California the real estate low was 1995 or 1996, the next high was what ? 2006 ?

I remember when Florida real estate was such a no brainer because we all knew the baby boomers were going to be retiring. Probably a lot of speculators thought, I'll be smart and "sell the fact," I'll even get out right before they start retiring.

But alas, Mr. Market outsmarted so many. My point ? It's not that hard to be right about something being undervalued or over valued. What's hard is knowing how much more undervalued or overvalued it can become. That is, the timing is the hard part.

The people who bought gold at 830 for a semi long term play in 1980 were right. But they might not have expected it to be 30 years before they were right.

I'm not saying that I think gold is at it's high. I have no opinion now. Seems like a coin flip to me at this point. But I was very bullish on gold in 2001 - 2004 and told others to buy it (I almost never give such advice), but I didn't have the funds to buy much then.

To change the focus somewhat, do most of you buy physical gold bars and/or coins? If so from where? And how actively do you trade them given they are physical assets.

I have been buying GLD but found out recently that it is just paper backed and it isn't clear to me what the correlation or maybe specifically the ratio in price between the security and the physical asset is. With all this talk about trading options that seems to be a fairly intrinsic risk. Thoughts?

globe33 says

To change the focus somewhat, do most of you buy physical gold bars and/or coins? If so from where? And how actively do you trade them given they are physical assets.
I have been buying GLD but found out recently that it is just paper backed and it isn’t clear to me what the correlation or maybe specifically the ratio in price between the security and the physical asset is. With all this talk about trading options that seems to be a fairly intrinsic risk. Thoughts?

Well it is not supposed to be paper backed but there are some who suspect the amount of GLD in the ETF is nil. Anyhow, I havent bought GLD but watch it. It seems to track close to goldprice/10. Of course there is risk , gold can go down for long periods. I own some coins purchased at various coin shops and the US Mint. To me it is an assett worth owning not selling.

What is the strategy to handle the capital gains tax on gold? 28% is a nasty hit, especially if one considers the markdown most dealers want to take when you sell them your coins or bars.

Vicente proclaims from the mountaintop: "That was another of my breaking points, when I realized the party had degenerated so far that it had become a requirement to worship morons and you had to hide any education or intelligence you might have or be suspect."

Hahaha! Vicente, you really gave me a good laugh. This is the kind of thing a classical leftist would say. Oh, where to begin?

You claim that smart republicans are "suspect" yet you claim to have modeled yourself after Buckley who is very respected in the conservative community. Then you argue they require "worship" of morons. This is probably not a long shot, but I suspect that you didn't fully agree with these "morons" hence they were worshipped for being "morons" rather than simply holding positions that differed from yours.

Do you know what projection is? I don't recall any conservative ever saying or indicating that they regard smart people as suspect and worship morons. But... leftists seem to like to brag about how smart they are and superior to those who disagree with them so if anyone seems to want worship, it's them. In fact, I'd say that all the dogma of leftism (gay marriage, global warming apocalypse, socialism, etc.) really are just like going for bread and wine to church for a more "personal" agenda. They're just a framework to feel good about yourself. I bet you think of yourself as smart, don't you. Is that a shot in the dark?

Tell you what: I believe what I believe simply I think it's best. I would rather be "stupid" and think the "best" thing than be "smart" and believe in something that sounds smart, but is not "best." I also put practicality ahead of ideology. I'm old enough to understand that what I think is best and what is "right" is sometimes not possible. If I was smarter or I could believe in stuff that I think is "right" and have that work for me, I wouldn't be talking to you. I'd be at Bildeberg hanging out with the elite and finding ways to get people like you to do my bidding.

"you keep fishing around trying to show i “wasn’t conservative enough” to deserve checking off Republican as my affiliation"

If this is "fishing" then all I need to catch fish is go out in a boat and set up a bucket and have the fish jump in. For starters, when I see "i" spelled in lowercase that's usually an indication the person is having an identity crisis. I see it a lot when debating women online.

This is the classic situation of if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck... I am honestly puzzled at how you can claim to have been a republican for years and then switch to Obama and declare your former ideologues to be morons. I guess stranger things have happened. Hmmm, I had a friend who was Catholic because of her family, found she didn't like it, and switched to Judaism (getting married to a Jew didn't hurt either.) So perhaps you just found you switched to leftism because it suited you.

For the record, I started out not as a leftist but more as a marxist and found that being a white male heterosexual who was out for his best interests rather than belong to a self-proclaimed smart-people club. I'm not ashamed to say that. I can see why many members of democrat special interest groups vote democrat and love to see the different "big tent" groups starting to conflict with each other. Feminists and fundamentalist Islam, for example. That'll be a fun battle to watch in the coming decades!

PolishKnight says

You claim that smart republicans are “suspect” yet you claim to have modeled yourself after Buckley who is very respected in the conservative community. Then you argue they require “worship” of morons

I think you misunderstood me. It USED to be the case that men like Buckley were respected in the GOP. Not any more. Now if you don't worship Sarah Palin and follow her every tweet and facebook post, you must be some kind of RINO traitor. It's one factor among several that opened my eyes to what the party had degenerated into.