patrick.net

EightBall says

Not sure where Vicente would best serve - department of justice seems appropriate.

Head of the BATF of course, duh!

Once marijuana is legalized it'll be all mine, not those DEA dimwits.

I think I'll reorder the name to BAMFT, at least it's pronounceable without spelling it every time.

Oh wait, gotta throw in regulation of Ray America's Fat Tax.

So then it becomes BAMFFT. Hmmm...

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

I know you like hyperbole and strawmen arguments–it’s a favorite trick of AM radio.

LOL, no one who could easily see through that would ever claim that it was a “favorite trick of AM radio,” which by the nature of the accusation implies that it is not a favorite trick of the left or was not at least as prevalent on the left, including Obama himself, the king of strawman arguments.

You need a primer on logic. Saying A does one thing does not in any way imply that A's rival doesn't do said thing.

OK, you are just delusional.

robertoaribas says

actually, a failed auction of government debt would lead to a currency crisis, not hyper inflation. The US government would have to begin shutting down, and/ or paying in IOU’s.
I would expect, that the world bank would not let an economy the size of the US shut down, if they don’t even let Greece and Ireland shutdown, and especially given the importance of the dollar in international trade.
HOWEVER: they would probably insist on sizeable cuts to government spending immediately as conditions of any loan package, so the effect would be severe. And yes, interest rates would rise along with unemployment, house prices would get slammed.

There will be no failed auction. At the last resort, Fed will cover the shortage no matter the cost to dollar exchange rate and other effects. IMF and WB cannot and will not get involved with this and demand anything of the US govt., for one because US has an effective veto power over them and WB president is an American appointed by the US govt. As said many times, Ireland and Greece borrowed in the currency not under their control, hence the problem.

What might happen (improbable but might) is that Congress will refuse to lift the debt ceiling at some point. Then even Fed couldn't help: for them to "lend", the Treasury must be able to "borrow".

world bank certainly has no assets to bail out US...nobody can US can bail out itself.

an auction can certainly fail, Feds would not be able to react in time to save it.

Chinese shifted their buying of US debt to shorter term (1-3 years), so they are posed to bail out.

investors can certainly lose faith in US Fed and Treasury, if they're going to keep up piling up debth and printing money for few more years (and there is nothing that can suggest otherwise). I already have.

sure, US default (unlikely) or massive money printing (most likely), may and probably would lead to world-wide recession and USD losing reserve currency status and maybe becoming not freely convertable, but other countries would recover soon, kick out US of free trade agreements as currency manipulator or quit themselves and set up trade barriers and will go on...

everybody would survive, some with their asset quite devaluated in real money, others not so much.

Vicente says

shrekgrinch says

4) With only 5 minutes or so on Google, shrekgrinch proves that Obama in fact did raise taxes.

Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. In total taxes went down for most Americans. I paid less last year, expect it to be similarly low this year. Maybe you should recheck your returns.

Yes, but he is right. Obama campaigned on NO FORMS OF TAX INCREASES so we should hold him to that. Now, if he had said our overall taxes would not increase then that would be a whole other story....I stand with politifact. PROMISE BROKEN.

========================================================

Smokers, tanning aficionados, the happily uninsured: More taxes coming at ya!
Updated: Thursday, April 8th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

We were willing to give President Barack Obama a Compromise rating on this promise when a new cigarette tax went into effect. But the latest health care bill includes more broad-based taxes that are pushing us toward Promise Broken.

We should state at the outset that if you think Obama only meant he would not raise income taxes on people making less than $250,000, then you might think Obama is keeping his promise. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, and Obama said he would extend those tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. We still have that promise rated In the Works. People who make more than $250,000 will likely see their taxes go up, just as Obama promised during the campaign.

But Obama's campaign rhetoric took him beyond just income taxes. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said. It's that "not any of your taxes" that is the sticking point.

The health care law that Obama signed on March 23, 2010, raises taxes on some things regardless of income. Two taxes in particular stand out. A tax on indoor tanning services begins this year. And in 2014, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Neither of these taxes are pegged to income.

Obama has made the case that the tax penalty for people who decline to buy insurance should not be considered a broken promise on taxes. If that tax, better known as the individual mandate, were the only new measure we were considering, we might be inclined to rate this a Compromise. But the fact is, if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy.

Obama made many other tax promises that are rated In the Works, and may ultimately move to Promise Kept. But this promise was so broadly phrased that almost any type of revenue-generating measure could have contradicted it. We're now willing to rate it Promise Broken.

tatupu70 says

You need a primer on logic. Saying A does one thing does not in any way imply that A’s rival doesn’t do said thing.

Perhaps we can take a class together. You are partially correct. By it self, saying A does one thing does not necessarily imply that A's rival doesn't do said thing. But saying A does one thing, as a means of drawing a distinction (whether directly or indirectly) between A and A's rival, certainly may imply that A's rival doesn't do (or is less likely to do) said thing: it includes an "unstated premise" or ... as a primer on logic may call it, an enthymeme.

Your statement was...

I know you like hyperbole and strawmen arguments–it’s a favorite trick of AM radio.

Do you also like hypbole and strawman arguments in the same fashion as you accuse here (regardless of whether it comes from AM radio, Jon Stewart, President Obama, etc.)?

Maybe you were just engaging in gratuitous abuse? I would be somewhat surprised if you in particular were engaging in that, but it does seem to be something that is easy for everyone, regardless of their politics or character in real life, to do at least occasionally on chat boards.

Paralithodes says

Perhaps we can take a class together. You are partially correct. By it self, saying A does one thing does not necessarily imply that A’s rival doesn’t do said thing. But saying A does one thing, as a means of drawing a distinction (whether directly or indirectly) between A and A’s rival, certainly may imply that A’s rival doesn’t do (or is less likely to do) said thing: it includes an “unstated premise” or … as a primer on logic may call it, an enthymeme.

I think you are making large jump to infer that that statement had an unstated premise in it. It implied only that you listen to AM radio.

You think I am a liberal (I'm not) so you assume that I must be making some sort of political statement there. I think gratuitous abuse is probably closer to the truth--what fun is it to post to anonymous boards if you can't have a little fun...

tatupu70 says

I think you are making large jump to infer that that statement had an unstated premise in it. It implied only that you listen to AM radio.

To be pedantic, you implied that one likes hyperbole and strawman arguments because they listen to AM radio (which of course around here means "right-wing" radio). Yes, I do think you are generally a "liberal," but I believe you are making some sort of political statement primarily because you are engaging in a political thread.

tatupu70 says

think gratuitous abuse is probably closer to the truth–what fun is it to post to anonymous boards if you can’t have a little fun…

Fair enough and absolutely!

Meanwhile...

"Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

Clarence 13X says

1. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts
2. Make Fair Trade a reality
3. Tax the hell out of offshoring companies
4. Tax imports from China until they play fair
5. Pull out of Afghanistan…you aint gonna find him.
6. Education Reform: Require 7-6 school days, provide single parents with a safe haven for their children.
7. Increased spending on innovation and infrastructure
8. Healthcare Reform: No preexisting clauses, reduce costs
9. Increase/Reform Social Security, welfare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac requirements

Number 4 could very well spark a trade war, not saying I’m disagreeing with you, but everyone needs to be aware of the downside.

As for Number 5, I say stop taking half measures. If Korengal Valley is the most dangerous place in Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold and a base for there operations. I say nerve gas the entire valley. This is war and people die in wars. If there are no safe havens for the Taliban, they will be defeated in short order. While I would agree that getting involved in Iraq was a huge mistake, I can’t say the same with Afghanistan. If our enemies remained unchecked, it’s only a matter of time before the next big terrorist attack comes.

Number 1 and 7 will cost a lot, can’t see how you can say it’s no cost to taxpayers. If you eliminate bush tax cuts, taxes will INCREASE for most tax payers. Also infrastructure improvements cost money.
Number 8 will cost more for the insurance companies, thus they will pass the costs on to there customers. If you write some laws preventing them for passing on the costs, that will only last until they are driven out of business, then the will be no insurance companies.

Number 6 will require teachers to work 6 or 7 days a week, or you will have to hire additional teachers to make up the difference. Adding even one school day a week, adds 20% to overall education costs. Guess what, BIG tax hike at the local level.

Your simple fixes to save America are not very well thought out, I glad your not running the Country. Try to at least think about what the cause and effects are before you sharing your thoughts again.

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile…
“Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

Did you read the questions? It was BS.

tatupu70 says

Did you read the questions? It was BS.

How so?

The questions were specifically chosen to cater to one type of political leaning. Additionally, many were trick questions or open to interpretation.

eg. Minimum wage raises unemployment.

If the US had a minimum wage of $.25/day would that raise unemployment?

Free trade causes unemployment.

Are you refering to unemployment in the US or global unemployment?

It's the same problem you get with 95% of surveys...

And in actual news, Bay area house prices and sales fell in October.

"The median price of a house or condominium dropped 1.8 percent from a year earlier to $383,000, the first annual decline since September 2009."

"Sales in the nine-county Bay Area fell 23 percent to 6,122, the second-lowest tally for October since the company began keeping records in 1988."

Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/19/BUHO1GE6LC.DTL

EBGuy says

Oil in the pasta water? Discuss.

Are you kidding? Of course. Italians put olive oil, in their olive oil. Just a teaspoon though in the pasta water. I used to get by with just a small bottle. Now that I live with an Italian, we have to buy the Costco giant size I forget it's like a 2 or 3 liter bottle. Salad dressing? Well that's olive oil too, although maybe mixed with a little something like balsamic vinegar from Modena, which is where her sister is living.

She's from Naples so of course Pizza Margherita is another home-bake favorite. Yeah we make all kinds of basic dishes at home. Carbonara, yum, just make it with bacon though it's cheap and easy nearly the same as pancetta. Pasta with tomato sauce maybe toss in some eggplant or zucchini or squash, it is cheap and easy. Gnocci however I find a pain to make so usually eat out for that.

The whole euro currency situation is designed to ensure no countries within the zone gets a free lunch, even though some of them need it at this point. Instead of fixing these countries problems, they're helping them stay alive but keeping them bleeding. In essence they have to fail eventually. All of this because the other countries don't want to pick up the load for these other countries, no matter what. They want 100% of the good benefits of a strong currency without paying the price for having that strength.

While everyone hates states who get welfare or more tax revenue than they bring in, it keeps all parts of the country strong.

I didn't say this was good for Ireland in any way. It helps the other countries by
a) Them not taking a loss on anything
b) Keeping the currency strong for the time being

Eventually Ireland will fail, along with the other countries and then the stronger countries will probably really hurt.

The states redistribute wealth to keep things level. California wouldn't default it could have it's debt taken over by the US, but they won't have any crazy rules placed on them either.

It's like living in a nice neighborhood where crime takes off. You say you aren't helping at all because you've got an alarm system, giant wall, and guns to keep your house safe. Meanwhile every other house gets broken into, and eventually you're living in the slums. You saved a few dollars by not contributing to helping everyone else out, who didn't put in place all the safety features you had, but in the end your property has dropped drastically in value. Eventually this will be the EU. With failed countries surrounding the wealthy ones, and no one trusting the currency. The wealthy ones will lose exports. They'll lose their currency strength and the whole region will be set back decades, while every other region in the world passes them.

Pinch the pennies, throw the dollars.

shrekgrinch says

Ireland needs to look after itself, just like the Icelanders did and homeowners here with brains and underwater mortgages. Ireland just needs to walk away. It is the most superior option for them compared to the alternatives.

The difference is that Iceland had and has its own currency, while Ireland use Euro and can't "walk away" without losing it. If it does, the economic consequences would likely be even worse than those of such "receivership".

shrekgrinch says

Obama’s own people admitted to this after the election.

http://www.wimp.com/dramaticeagle/

Hard liquor is where most of the stealing happens. Did they under pour? Over pour? Spill? Where did it go? Or did it not go anywhere... Did the employees buy a bottle of vodka and simply pour from that? It costs them very little for the product and now the owners don't even know it's missing. They could marry the bottles during the night, so they could be pouring from your bottles but you would never know. They don't need to do this very often to really put a dent in sales and give themselves a huge boost in earnings.

Speaking of Italian restuarants, looks like this space will be available soon. Ducky, your concept might work here as the higher end stuff doesn't seem to have the staying power.

shrekgrinch says

90% of what liberals believe in is in direct defiance of actual, observable facts of human nature as recorded in history, economics, anthropology and psychology. Period. That is a hard fact just as much as the sky being blue. That poll just confirms what is already factually established.
Liberals can’t stand this fundamental truth. Whenever proof arises arises that confirms all of this but they can’t easily — let alone credibly — dismiss or ignore, they deny, obfuscate or just plain change the subject somehow. Having one’s fundamental beliefs and worldview demonstrated to be utter shit is a harsh thing to endure, I am sure. I almost feel sorry for you guys. Almost.

I stand corrected. Clearly, you are the reasonable one.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

I’m glad you are so proud of yourself, but you are still wrong, of course. Obama never campaigned that he would “fix everything”. No politician would ever say that.

That was his overall message. Why else would people like Peggy Joseph come out and say, “Obama will pay for my gas! Obama will pay for my mortgage!” She wasn’t the only one who said so.
Did you see them saying that about McCain? How about John Kerry? Al Gore? George Bush Jr? Even Bill Clinton?
Obama’s own people admitted to this after the election.

CHICAGO (CBS) ― President-elect Barack Obama and his inner circle fear that some voters expect him to turn around the economy, wind down the war in Iraq and, perhaps, cure cancer — all by the Fourth of July…
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2008/11/obamas-team-still-trying-to-lo.html
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=34107243684&topic=6692

Shrek--

Come on. You are really arguing that Obama campaigned on the promise that he would fix everything? That it was his overall message?

And your proof is that somebody said he would pay for their gas? Oh wait, I forgot. There's an article where he says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. In that case, you must be right.

shrekgrinch says

That poll just confirms what is already factually established.

I thought conservatives didn't believe in facts, only that there are 'unverified theories'.

We Liberals were just discussing this at our latest monthly Liberal Meeting yesterday.

Let's consider just one of the poll questions:

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Well it depends on what you MEAN by restrictions. For some, they do not see restrictions as a cost. Example this area is residential you cannot build an office building here. Well they don't want a skyscraper next to their cottage, and they also may not see where it's any economic effect. You want a skyscraper, build it next to the other ones what's the diff? Or you cannot build a rickety moldy fire trap and sell it without inspections. For many that's a FLOOR requirement, not a hidden/undesirable cost. See what I mean?

These 2 in particular tick me off:

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).

You are only "enlightened" if you think unilateral "free trade" is creating a Utopia. Why look around!

I know from a personal example, that KMPG in Italy has a practice of hiring locals in low-paying "apprentice" sort of roles, then disposing of them before the point at which they would have to hire them at full wages.

Yup, the Weimar part was all the hot money moving into Ireland during the bubble.

I got whacked in my speculative investment into a failing REIT that had some Irish property.

Dum dum dum dum dum

Land, man. It's the most important sector of any economy.

One reason housing is not coming back is because HELOC, home equity line of credit, is over.

And it ain't coming back any time soon.

shrekgrinch says

You still haven’t disprove the facts I presented. Yes. FACTs.
Liberals’ biggest mistake right now (and always) is that they don’t know any facts, just propaganda bullshit.
Obama raised taxes…on the middle class mostly. Deal with it.

Just getting back to this... I suppose its been covered in the many links above, but here's my take since SG called me out...

Okay: Your proof on Obama's HUGE OMFG LOL FAILURE and the source for your Monster Crushing Demolition of the factual basis of the entire left leaning portion of the population is... an article on politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

Fair enough, okay then, so, lets have a look at it. First thing, lets leave aside the FACT that the site doesn't label the promise as "Broken" - which it seem to have no problem doing for other things - its just a "Compromise", the lines that stand out for me are: "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said. It's that "not any of your taxes" that is the sticking point." Fair enough, and: "A tax on indoor tanning services begins this year." ...and: "in 2014, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance."

My initial question is to the third part: Do you consider a traffic ticket a tax?" If you say yes then you can call anything a tax. The reason I suppose this is "levied through their income taxes" is that its a surefire way of getting the cash but you can't call it a tax, its a fine. I sure as hell don't agree with the concept of the health fine but I'm sure as hell not going to call it a "tax" just because it happens to suit me to do so at the moment.

And then the sales taxes... The first thing I want to do is jump over this to some context. Directly to the point I'm about to make is this article on beliefnet, arguably a fairly right leaning site, that lays out fairly clearly what the Obama tax reductions have been: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/02/is-obamas-tax-cut-the-biggest.html

A quote from the article: "The Democrats have been so busy defending federal spending, and denigrating the stimulative power of tax cuts, that they apparently either forgot to -- or felt they couldn't -- point out something rather dramatic: the tax cuts in this stimulus plan appear to be the biggest in history. The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others. Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive." Links to numbers are in thearticle.

So now the first thing that pops into my head when I read this is a comparrisson of "sales tax on tanning beds" to "the tax cuts in this stimulus plan appear to be the biggest in history" and I have to say I wonder what the hell is your problem. Really.

And then I stop looking for facts on the subject because, I mean, if you're going to take a sales tax on cigarettes & tanning beds and call a fine a tax and then compare it to an overall massive lessening of income taxes and try to present it as some sort of basis for demolishing the intellectual basis of "The Left" I just don't know what to say to you, other than I expect you to argue that the second world war never ended becasue german & british football fans occasionally get into fistfights. Its basically on the same level of intellectual honesty & accomplishment.

and net research, net research... check this one out:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/top-stocks/blog.aspx?post=1662557
"Ronald Reagan would be proud of Obama’s tax rates
The president's plan for dividends and capital gains is better than even the Gipper's most investor-friendly levels"

or this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=7571718&page=1

or this:
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Obama-Pushes-Business-Tax-Cuts-56136-1.html

or this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/fact-sheet-president-obama-has-signed-eight-small-business-tax-cuts-law-

I'm just going to go back to posting stupid pics and links now. It takes less time and has the same effect and is more entertaining.

Here's one:

The TRUTH EAGLE is WATCHING YOU!

Vicente says

EBGuy says

Oil in the pasta water? Discuss.

Are you kidding? Of course. Italians put olive oil, in their olive oil. Just a teaspoon though in the pasta water. I used to get by with just a small bottle. Now that I live with an Italian, we have to buy the Costco giant size I forget it’s like a 2 or 3 liter bottle. Salad dressing? Well that’s olive oil too, although maybe mixed with a little something like balsamic vinegar from Modena, which is where her sister is living.
She’s from Naples so of course Pizza Margherita is another home-bake favorite. Yeah we make all kinds of basic dishes at home. Carbonara, yum, just make it with bacon though it’s cheap and easy nearly the same as pancetta. Pasta with tomato sauce maybe toss in some eggplant or zucchini or squash, it is cheap and easy. Gnocci however I find a pain to make so usually eat out for that.

Making Carbonara with freshly made fettuccine is the best pasta in the world. The fresh pasta releases so much starch that the carbonara just thickens up nicely. Most places I've been to put cream in their carbonara. To me, that's sacrilege.

shrekgrinch says

Period

Well shit then show me that he raised them. Since you're obviously a BIG PICTURE guy, go away and work out what the numbers are for the tanning bed & cigarette taxes and then balance them against the corporate and personal income tax numbers and show us that its actually all in all a tax increase. Thats what you're saying right? That he increased taxes?

shrekgrinch says

ou try to foist on others: That Obama did not raise taxes on Americans and so those Americans who believe

Give me the numbers.

Shrek--

So, in your opinion, a minimum wage of $.25/day would result in higher unemployment in the US?

There are alot of things to crit the Obama admin for but raising taxes ain't one of them.

Facts... I get all my fact from here:
http://conservapedia.com/

Especially when it says things like this: "The Bible, being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority..." Fantastic stuff.

But when I look under "tax" http://conservapedia.com/Tax Isee that "fine" isn't in there... I know the republicans were trying really hard to label that heathcare fine as a tax, but man, if Conservapedia doesn't say it is then I just can't agree with you.

shrekgrinch says

BTW, you’re not exactly serving up a good example of an ‘informed’ liberal

Then I'm balancing you out.

But I'm not the one presenting an opinion poll as factually relevant information...

I know, I know...you say he raised taxes. Show me, show me taxes are higher. Thats what "raising taxes" means to most normal people, right?

But no... you say he "raised a tax" therefore he raised taxes. Dude, you can play little pedant word games and jump around like a little bunny on your hopscotch mystery field but there's just nothing there.

Look, its a german and a brit fighting. It must be WWII:

OK--I think we've seen where you are mistaken. You originally claimed:

shrekgrinch says

His entire 2008 campaign was ‘don’t worry, be happy, we’re going to fix EVERYTHING’. And that is why he is being judged that way. I didn’t make those rules — he did.

But, once I called you on it, now you've backtracked to this:

shrekgrinch says

THAT was the message that voters received. Esp the Kool-Aide drinkers who worshipped him like a god or something.

So, it's really not that he campaigned on it, it's that some people misinterpreted what he said. Even you can see the difference there, right?

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

Shrek–
So, in your opinion, a minimum wage of $.25/day would result in higher unemployment in the US?

Yup. Because of this little nasty reality called ‘marginal decision-making’. For some businesses, that will be too much. Not all. Not most, even. But some. Seriously.
Personally, I think the minimum wage should be $100/minute and the income tax should be 100%. That way the full force of liberal idiocy will become pretty apparent to all from both ends.

Bullshit. I'll say one thing--you will argue the most inane points even when you know you are wrong. You are persistent.

tatupu70 says

I’ll say one thing–you will argue the most inane points even when you know you are wrong. You are persistent.

Must be Ray under a different handle.

Shrek says

Personally, I think the minimum wage should be $100/minute and the income tax should be 100%. That way the full force of liberal idiocy will become pretty apparent to all from both ends.

You can't argue with his logic (or at least you shouldn't).

Is this in keeping with the intent of the thread:

"I do not understand the electorate. This country is hurting in a way we haven't since the Depression. People struggling all over this country, and they came out and voted for the party that says right up front they will suspend your unemployment benefits and repeal health care. To go against your self-interest more you'd have to literally go fuck yourself."
---Bill Maher