patrick.net

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

shrekgrinch says

Also, how will Ireland ‘lose’ the euro by defaulting on debts?

Good point. Ireland can still use the Euro as its de facto currency no matter what the other countries say.

Right now in my book, the only sane people in Europe are the Icelanders. They all the collective sense sense to say, “Screw you! I didn’t sign those contracts!” and make it stick despite all their professional politicians being bought-and-paid for by the banksters.

I agree. The politicians should not be able to enslave the people with debt. We should have the right to reject national debt.

How is it working out for Iceland so far?

TechGromit says

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.

Well damn....cheese and eggs is all I can say.

KentM,

Your TRUTH EAGLE frightens me. He stares right into my soul.

I can't say I ever much cared for eagles. I think it's a terrible choice for a national symbol.

You know who else liked eagles?

Oh my gawd, I'm starving now!!!

Nomo, that one goes to eleven.

tatupu70 says

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

If people in the US earned $1.00/wk on average then yes. So, in your opinion, Tat, if minimum wage was raised by $5/hr, there would be zero impact on employment?

In your opinion, there is a positive correlation between minimum wage and employment? Or at least zero correlation? (the point is, it's exceptionally easy to disregard a statistical relationship by using arbitrary but specific hypothetical values. But knowing how you feel about logic, I know you would not intentionally make such fallacious conclusions).

Paralithodes says

If people in the US earned $1.00/wk on average then yes

That was pretty much my point. People in the US don't earn $1.00/wk.

Paralithodes says

So, in your opinion, Tat, if minimum wage was raised by $5/hr, there would be zero impact on employment?

No--of course it would affect employment. If that were the question asked on the survey, then their answer would have been more accurate.

Paralithodes says

In your opinion, there is a positive correlation between minimum wage and employment? Or at least zero correlation?

I think below a certain value, there is no correlation between minimum wage and employment. Once above that point, then there is a relationship.

@shrekgrinch
Currently taxes aren't spent 1:1 for where they come from. We accept that now. So yes, they will. New Orleans got a bunch when it was in trouble. It's how the system operates, move money to where it's needed, regardless of where it came from. Not so in Europe.

Countries could continue using the Euro, but wouldn't have any say in what happens. Just like other countries that use the USD. It works well because the currency is stable, but if a few countries start unraveling the euro with defaults, but keep using it, it's going to lose any sense of strength.

shrekgrinch says

Not my problem if you can’t understand economics or (worse) do so but simply refuse to acknowledge said economic realities because they harm your ideological world view.

But it is your problem that I do. And at a much deeper level than you.

shrekgrinch says

Probably no more than 100 businesses in the entire country will be directly negatively impacted by a .25 cent raise in the minimum wage that they have to lay of workers. But they do exist or do you refute that?

Interesting. That's not at all the discussion that we were having however. My example was a minimum wage of $.25/day, not an increase over the current minimum wage by $.25/day. Hopefully you will read a little more carefully next time.

Have you given up the whole Obama campaigned that he'd fix everything BS now? Good.

shrekgrinch says

Ok. So what was your point by asking that question? Do enlighten us.

My point was to show you where you and the survey were wrong. A minimum wage doesn't necessarily affect employment. I'm sorry that you can't understand it. Again. This is becoming a broken record with you.

shrekgrinch says

And, why would other economies collapse?

Loss of their primary export market.

shrekgrinch says

What? By asking such an absurd question that is akin to asking: “If you were served a brownie that everyone says tastes really, really good…and that it has only a ‘little bit’ of dog shit in it, would you still eat it?”
Yeahhhhh….both questions are as worthy of consideration as Peggy Joseph’s views are.

Again my point is completely over your head. I'm sorry. I'll try to dumb them down for you from now on. The survey asked absurd, borderline trick questions so I figured it would be appropriate to show this with an absurd question of my own.

tatupu70 says

I think below a certain value, there is no correlation between minimum wage and employment. Once above that point, then there is a relationship.

Are we below or above that point in the US right now?

Tat, just curious what your position is on this....

Does Apple have a monopoly on iPods?

Does it have a monopoly on portable audio (MP3/AAC, etc.) players?

Paralithodes says

On these grounds, you dismiss ALL the questions in the survey, apparently including the one about the definition of a monopoly, a mistake I have seen many times in real life and even in this forum before (I believe you made the mistake in the past), among so-called “liberals” but not among conservatives.

Not at all. If I've implied or stated that I dismiss all of the questions, then I apologize. I dismiss the conclusions that were drawn from the survey.

Paralithodes says

Do you believe that so called “liberals” are equally or more knowledgeable of economics in general than conservatives? I’m not just talking ethereal ideas of “equal justice” and “fairness” but of how things actually work?

I don't think it has anything to do with conservative or liberal.

Paralithodes says

Tat, just curious what your position is on this….
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPods?
Does it have a monopoly on portable audio (MP3/AAC, etc.) players?

An iPod is an Apple product, and I'll assume that they've patented much of the technology. So yes, I'd say Apple has a monopoly on iPods because other companies are prevented from producing them.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on portable audio however. Alhtough they have 70%+ market share, there are lots of substitute good available and they don't really have pricing power in the market.

PS--If I missed that I'm going to be sad. 2 years of going to school at night for naught...

The reverse is also true on these stocks, look at CCME. This could be you.

Looking for shady deals is great, but if you're wrong, you could end up getting hurt pretty badly!

tatupu70 says

2 years of going to school at night for naught…

You got a B- on this one . . . Apple only has a monopoly on *new* iPod-brand music players, since monopolies deal with specific markets and not products per se.

Also, they are close to inferred monopoly market position in new music players, which has been taken to be 70-80%.

Troy says

You got a B- on this one .

That's a bit harsh I think.

Troy says

Apple only has a monopoly on *new* iPod-brand music players, since monopolies deal with specific markets and not products per se.

Definition of a market is pretty arbitrary to begin with. You can certainly argue that ipods aren't a market--I just took the question at face value.

Troy says

Also, they are close to inferred monopoly market position in new music players, which has been taken to be 70-80%.

We could debate this but I think I'd win. Market share alone does not constitute a monopoly. There must be other characteristics--usually very few substitutes, extreme pricing power, etc. In this case there are obvious substitues--a vast array of mp3 players. And Apple has had to reduce price--their pricing power is limited.

Hugh Hendry claims to have a play against China where the risk is about 2% but the reward is greater than 100%. He's basically playing the CDS swaps on Japanese companies that do business with China.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hugh-hendry-short-china-2010-10

Vicente says

KentM,
Your TRUTH EAGLE frightens me. He stares right into my soul.

The Truth Eagle sees all.

I understand the eagle was favorite symbol for the Romans as well. Thats partially why the Nazis adopted it.

Eagles are a favorite of eagles

robertoaribas says

Listing prices kept going up at the end of the bubble dimwit duck, while sales volume dropped. THEN sales prices dropped.
back your charts up to 2005…

Not even 2005. I want to know if there is any correlation in a normal market, like before the bubble. This micro, 2-year view is extremely selective and covers a time frame of tax credits, scheduled expirations, extensions, and an eventual expiration.

In over 300 documented historical cases, paper money has ended up being worth virtually nothing. In fact, it's happened twice in the USA; the Revolutionary War's "Continental Dollar" and Lincoln's Civil War "Greenbacks." Our current Federal Reserve Note, i.e. "dollar" will end up on the same trash heap, IMO. When Nixon closed the gold window in 1974, he in effect ended the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 that established the Dollar as the world's reserve currency. In that agreement, the world's major currencies were linked to the U.S. Dollar and in effect, were tied to gold because the U.S. Dollar was. There were also strict limits as to the ratios of paper currencies allowed to be printed in relation to the amount of U.S. Dollars in circulation. America’s printing & credit binge has led to an increase in like manner in all the major economies. With the removal of the link to gold, paper money can obviously be created out of thin air, allowing politicians to spend recklessly (“officially” $14 trillion & counting) while achieving and maintaining power over those that want handouts from the government, etc. Inflation becomes the politician’s best friend because it is, in effect, a secret, gradual tax on the, for the most part, unsuspecting people. Considering human nature, paper money can only lead to its ultimate failure at some point.

RayAmerica says

Considering human nature, paper money can only lead to its ultimate failure at some point.

I know this is not what you mean, but paper money is already gone. My job pays my digital money into my digital bank account that I use to buy things digitally with my credit card.

Who cares if paper money fails? We will just replace it wtih something else just as all the previous paper monies were replaced.

Gold is FAR too inefficient to be used as money in a modern world. Real estate in free countries? That is a bit different. If the dollar needs to be backed by something, backing it with real estate makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Nomograph says

theoakman says

Hugh Hendry claims to have a play against China where the risk is about 2% but the reward is greater than 100%

That’s a good reason to stay as far away from Hugh Hendry as possible.
Flashback to 2005: Wanna buy some mortgage-backed securities? There’s a great return and almost zero risk!

I suggest you read the article and find out who Hugh Hendry is. He returned 50% in 2008. He cleaned up shorting the crap out of Greece last year. And back in 2005, he bought that shiny metal you hate so much. He's well aware of risk which is why he didn't want to short Chinese stocks because of the potential losses involved in a miscalled market. He placed a bet that consists of 2% of his money. The maximum amount of money he can lose on this play is 2%.

The only thing that chart shows is that every time the asking price/sf increases the actual sale price/sf decreases. So, apparently the wishful thinkers are raising their prices and that historically means the properties that are priced lower/sf are the ones that sell. From this chart, the time to beware is when the ASKING price/sf goes down. That seems to trigger people purchasing properties for higher prices/sf than they had when the prices were lower/sf.