RE: An essay everyone should read

RE: An essay everyone should read (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 7:27:29 AM)
• the deindustrialization and financialization of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle class • It would have been hard to find an uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons. But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. • low-information voters ------- The core problem is the voters, backward, uneducated, apathetic, etc. The connection between authoritarianism and scapegoating is a good one, b/c the two are always linked. Its mind boggling to see Republicans blaming the Obama administration for the country's crippled economic position. How long do Republican policies and administrators have to fail on the federal level for voters to wake up?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 8:36:51 AM)
The fact is, neither of the parties seem to want or support a middle class. The Repubs want the middle class to support the poor, while the rich Repub donors keep every dime of their "hard earned" money. The Dems want to cut every possible service that the government provides to the middle class, while the rich and the poor continue to get entitlements.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 8:43:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, you claimed carried interest was ok because the hedge fund managers incurred substantial risk. They do not so no you are trying to change the subject. Unfortunately you aren't very good at it. There is no good reason to not treat all short term cpital gains as regular income. So first you claim they dont incur risk. I show they do. You change it to they arent legally required to incur risk. I show that is a strawman. Now you retreat back to they dont incur risk when they clearly do. Same old KenDoll.

MrRodgers -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 9:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, you claimed carried interest was ok because the hedge fund managers incurred substantial risk. They do not so no you are trying to change the subject. Unfortunately you aren't very good at it. There is no good reason to not treat all short term cpital gains as regular income. So first you claim they dont incur risk. I show they do. You change it to they arent legally required to incur risk. I show that is a strawman. Now you retreat back to they dont incur risk when they clearly do. Same old KenDoll. What risk ? You have not shown us how it is that they risk anything as they are no longer partnerships where partner money is at risk. If they blow it out their ass, the taxpayer bails them out. This is not just my opinion but straight from smaller players all over NY. The big investment banks are as we speak writing financial insurance that if even a little too much is required...here we go to bailouts again. They (the investor class) is and has been getting away with financial murder for years, making billions while WE...that is read WE, take the risk. Plus, as I've written, how about the risk of somebody's life, what does that get them ? 35% taxes, that's what. DomKen is correct as I've been correct there is no 'free market' [sic] justification or rationale for such a huge tax break simply for buying something, holding it for a year, selling at a profit and paying a 'long term' [sic] 15% tax rate.

MrRodgers -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 9:46:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Carried interest involves no risk. Bullshit Where's the risk? It is strictly the profit of the fund. The hedge fund siphons off a couple of percent of the money invested as the official management fee so the manager is going to make income no matter what. Therefore carried interest is completely risk free. The only risk would be if the manager was to invest in the fund which is not required. First, hedge fund managers almost universally invest in their own funds. It is part of the sales pitch that they have their own skin in the game. I listen to at least 6 pitches a quarter, usually 8 or 10, and its been years since I heard one that didnt include the general partners' investment in the fund and many where all of the firm's professional employees are required to invest a portion of their salaries in the funds. Those that dont only earn carried interest when returns are above a hurdle rate, which is a margin above market returns in whatever asset class they are hedging. They have to take risk to exceed those market returns, and if they dont exceed the hurdle rate they dont earn the carried interest, and if they consistently underperform because they dont take risk they lose their clients. Moreover the Baucus bill's enterprise tax provision plus OI treatment would result in carried interest being taxed at more than 50%, making them even worse than wages. Bullshit. Nothing legally requires the hedge manager to risk a penny and that is what is relevant. Carried interest is a provision of the tax code and it does not take into account partnership agreements etc.. Since it is income it should be treated exactly like income, as all so called capital gains should be. Nothing legally requires anyone to invest in stocks and get they still get capital gains treatment. Thats only an issue because as always you dont know wtf youre talking about and need to come up with strawmen. Not required to buy stocks but I am required to may 230% of what is a cap gains or car. intr. tax....for my upper wage labor. Why ? I would love a cap gains 'treatment.' Do they do that now down on 14Th st. ? Also, why do you think it is that 90% of cap gains go to those making over $340,000/yr ? It is obvious of course but I doubt I'll get a straight answer. You and I can bust our balls, get up early put in a full day at the office and more, make real good money and pay 35%. Warren Buffet and the rest can buy and sell companies and paper, all while on the golf course, make $66 million...and pay 17% blended over all rate. Why ?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 9:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Also, why do you think it is that 90% of cap gains go to those making over $340,000/yr ? It is obvious of course but I doubt I'll get a straight answer. You and I can bust our balls, get up early put in a full day at the office and more, make real good money and pay 35%. Warren Buffet and the rest can buy and sell companies and paper, all while on the golf course, make $66 million...and pay 17% blended over all rate. Why ? Uhhhh, because they have more money to invest, duhhhhhhhh. Why? Because RISK capital wont be invested if there is no expectation of AFTER TAX profits. Higher tax rates MUST result in fewer projects being funded. By far the most effective tax cuts in US history were the Kennedy and Clinton CG tax cuts.

DomKen -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 10:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, you claimed carried interest was ok because the hedge fund managers incurred substantial risk. They do not so no you are trying to change the subject. Unfortunately you aren't very good at it. There is no good reason to not treat all short term cpital gains as regular income. So first you claim they dont incur risk. I show they do. You change it to they arent legally required to incur risk. I show that is a strawman. Now you retreat back to they dont incur risk when they clearly do. Same old KenDoll. Bullshit. You claimd some incur risk, of their own choosing. You did admit that not all incur any risk. We do not give tax breaks to people simply because they choose to risk their own money for their own gain except for this one peculiar case. There is no good reason to give this tax break to anyone whose income exceeds$100k a year and several of this small group make more than 10 million per year. Your argument is that these people are successful in one very small field so they should pay substantially less taxes than everyone else.

thompsonx -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 4:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Yes we all know that clinton signed it but who instigated it? John Hinckley, Jr. Then why is it called the brady bill instead of the john hinkley jr. bill? There have been numerous assassination attempts on presidents and no brady bill ensued. sigh Because the bill is for or on behalf of James Brady. So jim and sarah brady had nothing to do with the innitiation and passage of the bill. The bill was just named after him? It was really john hinkly who did the policking to get it passed? If it were up to me, there would be no firearms of any type in the world. But that is my utopian ideal and not one that meshes with the real world, unfortunately. :) Because it is not up to you, bambi's mother will get shot in the head and I will enjoy my dinner.

thompsonx -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 4:57:02 PM)
quote: if you don't like my posts, don't read them. I read and respond only to disabuse you of your ignorance...don't thank me it comes under the heading of comunity service

tweakabelle -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 7:23:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And still you twist, Tweak. As I said before, and am fully bored with saying, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. In my previous post (#89), I quoted your paragraph in full and then discussed it on its merits, such as they are. How can this be said to be 'twisting' your words? It's hardly my fault that you contradict yourself. It's hardly my fault that you're unable to back up your drivel with evidence. It's hardly my fault that your posts display naked contempt for readers of these boards. I asked you to make "serious points" backed up with "evidence and logical argument" and to cease posting "relentless drivel, cock-eyed delusions and pathetic propaganda". You've made your choice and that choice is clear. You choose not to make serious posts. You choose to post drivel. . Your insistence on posting propaganda, falsehoods and drivel is treating readers of these boards with contempt. So, please don't whinge when your posts get all the consideration they deserve (ie. zero) or when they get treated with the contempt they beg for.

TheHeretic -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 8:48:15 PM)
Are you able to note the irony of demanding strict orthodoxy from someone who calls himself The Heretic, Tweak??? Look! I did find this for you! http://www.rall.com/rallblog/comics/2010-12-29.jpg

tweakabelle -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 9:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Are you able to note the irony of demanding strict orthodoxy from someone who calls himself The Heretic, Tweak??? Look! I did find this for you! http://www.rall.com/rallblog/comics/2010-12-29.jpg I'm trying to point you towards freeing yourself from your strict total subservience to the interests of the rich and powerful. I'm trying the help you wean yourself off your addiction to fawning servility to their never ending greed. You are already a loyal unthinking servant to their needs and interests and prosperity - so strictly orthodox in your zealotry that you're prepared to make a repeated idiot of yourself here promoting their needs. Thinking for yourself, thinking things through, thinking before posting their propaganda here are the first steps on your road to subversion TheHeretic. Dealing in evidence based facts, and abandoning the myths and delusions that characterise your posts to date are an excellent strategies towards that goal. There's nothing more orthodox than promoting the interests of those who currently enjoy power TheHeretic. If you wish to be, and to be seen as something other than this, you need to re-think your positions from A to Z.

TheHeretic -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 9:44:59 PM)
But, Tweak, I have rethought my positions from A-Z, to get where I am today. Quite a process, quite a journey, and not over I think. I'm not a leftist anymore, that's for sure.

tazzygirl -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 10:08:19 PM)
LOL... thats alot like saying Buffett is a socialist.

tweakabelle -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 10:49:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But, Tweak, I have rethought my positions from A-Z, to get where I am today. Quite a process, quite a journey, and not over I think. I'm not a leftist anymore, that's for sure. Then how on earth did you develop a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful? Were you drunk/stoned at the time? Or did you fall into some money?

TheHeretic -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 10:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Then how on earth did you develop a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful? Were you drunk/stoned at the time? Or did you fall into some money? How on earth do you level the sort of accusations you've been tossing, and then label me as having, "a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful?" Nitey-nite.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/6/2011 11:06:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Then how on earth did you develop a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful? Were you drunk/stoned at the time? Or did you fall into some money? How on earth do you level the sort of accusations you've been tossing, and then label me as having, "a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful?" Nitey-nite. Her autobiography will be named "The Audacity of Dope"

tweakabelle -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/7/2011 1:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Then how on earth did you develop a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful? Were you drunk/stoned at the time? Or did you fall into some money? How on earth do you level the sort of accusations you've been tossing, and then label me as having, "a philosophy of total subservience to the rich and powerful?" Nitey-nite. Because just about every policy I have seen you advocate here has been one that favoured the interests of the rich and powerful over those of ordinary people. Flat tax rates, which you defended earlier in the thread are but one example. They favour the wealthy in $ terms, and in % terms, and shift the tax burden onto those less equipped to pay. I know it's unlikely that you think about these things in these terms, but this the effect of the kinds of economic measures you've advocated. What other conclusion is possible?

M4S73R -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/7/2011 2:03:51 AM)
I read some of the posts on here. There are a couple of VERY big things that i don't think should be overlooked. 1. Our entire governing system needs to be overhauled. For example, voting and the electoral college, needs to go. If i remember history correctly electoral votes were put in because some people per county couldn't get to the voting polls. That is no longer the case. We have cars. We also have roads. 2. Proapition needs to go. This whole criminalization of marijuanna in this country is absured and archaic. The Drug War failed. 3. The United States Government needs to become self sufficient. This country used to make shit. Then free trade and private government contracts happened. Companies shut down factories here and moved them to Taiwan. Hell I got layed off from a job after 5 years because they decided to send it to India. 4. America, please stop voting for these hypocritical fat white religious zealots into office. they are systematically fucking our country for god. 5. The way were taxed needs to change. Either take tax out of my check(and if you do its not so you can invest it till the new year comes around and you can give it back to me) but if you do, im not paying sales tax, property tax or any other fucking tax you can come up with. Or stop taking it out of my check and ill pay taxes all year long in the things that i buy and the services I illicit. PICK ONE. 6. YOU CAN NO LONGER SERVE MORE THEN 2 TERMS IN ANY PUBLIC OFFICE. These cocksuckers that have been in political office for the last 15 years needs to go. you get 2 terms, THAT'S IT. 7. Legalize everything, prostitution, gay marriage, marijuana, anal sex and fellatio 8. If your business or organization puts money into the pocket of a political candidate to push an agenda, government seizes your business takes the owner out back and shoot him in the motherfucking face. (ish) Now I will say I am 27 years old, I vote all the time. City, county, state and federal. But im really tired of all 4 of them fucking me for tax money and then telling me how to live my life. My government should not make my life harder then it already is. Maybe some of these idea people wont like, and im cool with that, but in the next 10-20 years my generation will be in office and we hold no candle to all this bullshit going on.

Raiikun -> RE: An essay everyone should read (9/7/2011 4:07:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And still you twist, Tweak. As I said before, and am fully bored with saying, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. In my previous post (#89), I quoted your paragraph in full and then discussed it on its merits, such as they are. How can this be said to be 'twisting' your words? It's twisting his words by leaving out the most important qualifier in that post...his beginning it with an "If/then" statement. Heretic said "If we believe x (that he disagrees with) then we'd also have to say y", and you're attacking y while ignoring it depended on believing x. This would make your argument one of the strawman variety. Now, not to say I precisely agree with Heretic, but if you're going to argue against his points, it would be better to do so without basing your argument on a logical fallacy.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875