Trump will win!

Discussions
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:51 am

I have only seen one clip of AOC talking about her 70% tax plan. She doesn't do herself any favors by calling it that rather than what it is: a tax plan that goes up to a MARGINAL RATE of 70%. Two very different plans. I'm waiting for someone to mention that during Eisenhower the marginal tax rate was 90%. Personal Income Tax does catch peoples attention. I love the stories about the working poor who don't pay any (income) taxes at all voting Republica to avoid the socialism (that supports them) of the Gubment taking 70% of their money. STOOPID PEOPLE. Maybe they should still be citizens.....but allowed to vote?........ON TAX POLICY????

There is ample evidence against it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:18 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:09 am
Hold that bridge! Do NOT cede a single meter to the bastards!

Former boxer Christophe Dettinger, the pugilist in the video, has turned himself in to police. “will have to answer for his actions in court”. Interior Minister Christophe Castaner, lots of Christophes in this story, has stated that Dettinger “will have to answer for his actions in court”. Perhaps instead the French police should consider hiring him?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:20 pm

Elizabeth Warren drew large crowds in her post-announcement swing through Iowa. I think that the crowds are a result of voters' increasing hunger for a Democrat, not for Warren necessarily, who can successfully challenge Anus Mouth. I read that in some of her appearances Warren faced hard questions about the DNC and its alleged "rigging" of the primaries in Clinton's favor - a charge which Warren herself has made (then retracted).
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:51 am
I have only seen one clip of AOC talking about her 70% tax plan. She doesn't do herself any favors by calling it that rather than what it is: a tax plan that goes up to a MARGINAL RATE of 70%. Two very different plans. I'm waiting for someone to mention that during Eisenhower the marginal tax rate was 90%. Personal Income Tax does catch peoples attention. I love the stories about the working poor who don't pay any (income) taxes at all voting Republica to avoid the socialism (that supports them) of the Gubment taking 70% of their money. STOOPID PEOPLE. Maybe they should still be citizens.....but allowed to vote?........ON TAX POLICY????

There is ample evidence against it.
Actually, i posted such a chart a long time ago.
History shows clearly that the State (US government) never hesitated to increase the marginal rates dramatically when needed. It used to be one of the three leverage to deal with economical cyclical crisis - not contested by any economics - until the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1980's.
Marginal tax rate were risen from 10% to 72% during WW1, then reduced to 25% by 1924.
During the great depression, the rate was increased again by FDR to 62%, then 73% and during WW2 to an all time high of 94%...
It kind of stayed at those levels (91%) until 1964, before being progressively reduced 70% until...well the 80's.
Neo-liberals reduced the rate all down to 28% by the end of this decade (1980's), and declared that this rate should never been touched again because of its effect on the economy, without explaining of course how the USA managed to become the world economic leader with a 70% tax rate...
The result as far as i know was the explosion of national debts, and as a result, all of your american citizens owe a couple of hundred thousands of dollars to the capital holders...and this trend is not going to stop any time soon.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:12 pm

Some actor said last night that Satan inspired him in his depiction of Dick Cheney in a movie released last year. Some future actor will be saying that his portrayal of Donald Trump in a movie was inspired by Jabba the Hutt.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:18 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:02 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:51 am
I have only seen one clip of AOC talking about her 70% tax plan. She doesn't do herself any favors by calling it that rather than what it is: a tax plan that goes up to a MARGINAL RATE of 70%. Two very different plans. I'm waiting for someone to mention that during Eisenhower the marginal tax rate was 90%. Personal Income Tax does catch peoples attention. I love the stories about the working poor who don't pay any (income) taxes at all voting Republica to avoid the socialism (that supports them) of the Gubment taking 70% of their money. STOOPID PEOPLE. Maybe they should still be citizens.....but allowed to vote?........ON TAX POLICY????

There is ample evidence against it.
Actually, i posted such a chart a long time ago.
Thanks for quoting this, usually I say the opposite :)

All one need do is read recent articles to see mention of the marginal tax rate of the Eisenhower era. Or indeed read the article I linked to and look at the chart included (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... e=Homepage).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ost&wpmm=1
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... 70-percent

Not sure what it was Bobo was waiting for. Anyway, here's a helpful chart: https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1954.
Balsamo wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:02 pm
The result as far as i know was the explosion of national debts, and as a result, all of your american citizens owe a couple of hundred thousands of dollars to the capital holders...and this trend is not going to stop any time soon.
Along with the other, related downstream consequences.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:25 pm

Balsamo: posted a chart about what? I assume of what the tax rate has bee over the years? it does go up and down.

To quibble/get clarification? or actually disagree==You say raising tax rates up and down is not contested by any economics....but raising taxes is greatly contested by....in general the Republican Party and Neo-Conservatives which again generally follows certain precepts of the Chicago School of Economics. Government Intervention in the preferred laissez-faire business leg lock on the economy is contra to what you say a LIBERAL idea currently most often called Keynesian from the early 30's. Keynesian Theory is fraudulent criticized by the right for being liberal, interventionalist, anti-freedom, theft and all the other epithets because "ever since the Democrats first started using it, we have gone into debt." Keynes rightfully counseled that the government should spend in downturns which EVERYBODY is happy to do BUT...under Keynes, the government should cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to PAY FOR prior investments. This latter requirement is never done. As a Chart Man, I know you have seen the charts showing fairly uniformily for the past 50 years that taxes go up under the Dumbos and down under the Pukes. National Deficit and Debt goes up under both parties....just faster under Pukes except for the Obama Admin who had to save the Bush/Puke disaster.

As far as I can see, you have your main facts wrong and your time line all fouled up. Good post otherwise.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:34 pm

I’ve always said this:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, con job ever.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:02 pm

How is it a con job at all when the MAJORITY of voters don't believe him on anything.

I think your are confusing "getting elected" with having done anything including whatever makes up a con. To wit: Trumps "trick" was to run against Hilary.

Nothing clever, street smart, or conniving about it. Just dumb luck..........and Hilarys own larceny.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:37 pm

Sorry, i should have mentioned that i used the term "liberal" in the European sense of it, which is actually the opposite of how it is understood in the USA.
Liberal from Liberalism, in the economic perspective.

So when i say "neo-liberal" or "ultra-liberal" i speak about those adepts of the Chicago School of Economics, you would call "neo or ultra conservatives".

Actually, back then, my chart was about the link between tax rates and pubic debts and social inequality, and it showed that whatever political party was at power, they follow the economic rule to keep the debts under control, rising taxes when the debts was high (which often is correlated to social inequality), lowering the tax when things are under control. Again, it did not matter which party was occupying the white house and the congress, they followed the same basic method. BTW, it has nothing to do with Keynes or others economic schools of those times. It was basically a method used - well or badly - by any modern regimes in order to prevent precisely what is happening today.

There are only three levers to deal with the basic Economic mechanic - that is credit - and those are interest rates, money creation and sharing the existing wealth.
To make it very simple (and actually it is simple) economic growth is a result of a growth of credits until the moment inevitably comes when the level of credit is too high, at that point social inequality has reached a top, along with nasty things like inflation, and a deleveraging is inevitable, interest rates are increased which leads the level of credit down, which of course hurts the population, which forces the State to print money to compensate the deficit of credit, while also sharing the existing wealth as another method of compensation. Then when the level of credit is low enough, it can be increased again, by...guess what?...lowering the interest rates, and a new up cycle can begin. As the economy increases, social inequality goes down, income taxes (wealth sharing) can be reduced, until another top in credit creation is reached. And it all starts again.

great economic debates were more on what to do with the public money, that is how to use it in order to support the economy during those inevitable cycles. But as far as i know, no one contested the use of those three levers.

We are all heading against a solid wall because some dummies created a theory establishing that the first two levers were sufficient, when they are not, therefore, those cycles are much more hurting the working and middle classes than in the period after world war 2, as if the lessons of the great depression have been forgotten. And those dummies have convinced both sides of the political scenes, most democrats as well as the Republicans, for the great advantage of the great corporations.

But today, national/public as well as private/corporate debts have reached historical high levels - really never seen before - credit has turned into a bubble, and everyone with some basic in economy knows that a deleveraging is due. And it is going to be a painful one, and the three levers will be needed as never before.
It is going to hurt, even harder as the consensus still believes that the actual system, based on permanent new credit creation, can somehow be sustained artificially - as today by maintaining the interest rates artificially low (it is especially the case within the EU), by overextending the balance sheets of both the fed and the European central bank...and thus keeping inflated the credit bubble...
I mean we are living in an era when blindness is king to a point that our "experts" were not even able to draw conclusion of the 2008 crisis which almost wiped out our democracies, by saving the day by using the same poisons that led to this crisis in the first place.

In those condition, social protestations, unrest and even revolts are inevitable medium term (i used to say long term, but time seems to be running out fast these days). And even revolution - understood as a change of political regime - is no longer out of question.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:07 pm

Thanks Balsamo, great reply. I would very much like to see this chart you reference. We do need that "universal translator" when words have opposite meanings when crossing the pond.

Certainly the most important lever you did not mention? TAXATION. That is not the same thing as sharing wealth. //// Oh....I see that is exactly how you define/use it in subsequent paragraph. Ok...awkward. Taxation is separate from spending. some bad "equating" going on there. Yes....the poor terminology rises again as another way to share wealth is deficit spending?..........or is the understanding that is not wealth that is being shared?

I agree a crash is coming................course ANYONE can say that. The issue is always: when, how deep, and how long.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:12 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:07 pm
Thanks Balsamo, great reply. I would very much like to see this chart you reference. We do need that "universal translator" when words have opposite meanings when crossing the pond.

Certainly the most important lever you did not mention? TAXATION. That is not the same thing as sharing wealth. //// Oh....I see that is exactly how you define/use it in subsequent paragraph. Ok...awkward. Taxation is separate from spending. some bad "equating" going on there. Yes....the poor terminology rises again as another way to share wealth is deficit spending?..........or is the understanding that is not wealth that is being shared?

I agree a crash is coming................course ANYONE can say that. The issue is always: when, how deep, and how long.
Taxation is indeed to be understood as "Wealth sharing" at least in an democratic economy...when poor are getting poorer, you can increase taxes on them 10 fold, it won't bring you any money but a revolution.
In a purely economical perspective, it is all about "monetary creation"...a credit is as much a "money creation" as a printing press going crazy. Both leads to inflationary pressure (real numbers of course, not the official numbers that tend to include all useless devices which prices are falling), but printing money is an obligation when credit bursts, as the "monetary loss" from declining credit has to be compensated.

ok: monetary loss = less spending = less transaction = less income = less taxes on transaction and incomes = recession = deflation, etc.
To make the decline less severe, the central banks can start printing a certain amount of paper money to compensate the loss of "non-paper" money, a reduce the effects of those cumulative losses, and to keep a certain amount of money so that transactions between economic actors can be made. So the government re-inject this money it has created into the economy.
But too much creation of paper money has also some danger, so another source of money for the governments is the existing one, that is the money owned and earned by the wealthy. Quite huge actually today.
The only economical sense of printing money and taking money where it is (that is by the wealthy) is to COMPENSATE the loss of "virtual money" created by issuing credit.

HOW to use and where to spend this money gathered is another debate.

But the less compensation, the more brutal the deleveraging will be.

Crash is a term that refers to the stock markets, which is another issue, although it can be argued that its influence on the economy has also reached new heights, but that is another problematic - which used to be my job.

Long economic cycles are regular and inevitable, but it can be felt by the population at various degree, depending on the skills of the government, and of the experts at its services - which is what seems lacking today. In other words, things can settle down smoothly or it can be brutal, it is nevertheless never nice for the generation concerned, but it never covers an entire life span, so a generation can experience both up and down side in his life. And in the end, we all have ups and downs in our lives, and that is part of the show.

But it is the duty and the responsibility of those in charge to handle those cycles in the best way for the majority of the people, and therefore for them to reconsider all those silly theories that pupped up in the 80's and are now considered as religiously true when they were wrong from the start.
This belief is basically that credit can be created and sustained continuously, and that deleveraging could somehow be avoided, forgetting that a parabola at some point ceases to lead further.
I know very well that when the stock market starts getting parabolic, its leads to a crash/correction, so why should the credit not follow?

As far as i know, nothing can defy the laws of physics permanently.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:50 am

Well Balsamo, that reply is so sophisticated, erudite and scholarly that I have no option but to doubt it. Its too smooth, too sure of itself and too conclusionary. "A School of Thought" presented as advocacy rather than any balanced analysis?

Ha, ha........I don't KNOW that is true, its just my gut reaction. I don't know what "problematic" it is that used to be your job, but yes your review has the character of something economic. Economics: one of the few fields that the more expert one is in it, the less relevant one becomes. That always amuses me. Trouble is, only very smart people engage that subject to any depth. Dunning Kruger running amuck. My proof or indicator: like Historians, Economists KNOW so much more than anyone not in their field they have the habit of speaking AUTHORITATIVELY.........BUT.....they have about zero of a track record for being able to predict anything. anything that anyone with common sense can't predict. Its amusing to watch.

You don't say it, but again "the feeling" is you are an advocate of the Gold Standard? something totally grounding your position, but not said.

So, the above is just a first gut reaction. Can I pin it to certain errors/fallacies/assumptions that you present? Lets see:

1.
Taxation is indeed to be understood as "Wealth sharing" at least in an democratic economy
Yeah.....there it is.....what set my goose on fire. You define taxation as wealth sharing but then: at least in a democratic economy. Its just WRONG....right on the face of it. Taxation is REVENUE. How revenue is spent is an entirely different issue, on the other side of the ledger. The statement even recognizes this by giving the caveat of "at least in an democratic economy" (sic). That expressly means you have taxation....and then you have to do something rather specific to achieve any wealth sharing. IE: Taxation is NOT wealth sharing. something else is: like establishing a social safety net or other "socialistic" public services. So...when I see plain simple straight forward concepts/words/terminology being played with like this, my hackles rise and I look more closely for what other games are being played. I don't see that (those other games) being indicated so far. Too short an introductory statement, actual policies not being stated. Thats ok. Every conversation/statement can't say everything. Thats what discussions are all about: the fleshing out of initial ideas. and its not that good ideas can't be found once certain understandings of words are made....I just like using words as they are defined in the dictionary.

Well, thats a fullsome response on the first 15 words of your response...and I didn't even get to the characterization of an economy being democratic. ha, ha. I know. always difficult, a burden, a bore to have to explain all these basic things to the untutored. aka: I really have NOT studied economics. Have read popular press over the years, usually without enough interest to finish any given article. Its just....... the dictionary ....... I love. Lots of wisdom and objective grounding in the dictionary.

Tax: Charge against a citizen's person, property or activity for the support of government /// No wealth anything mentioned.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:51 am

A note on my immediate post above. In form, it follows and references content from Balsamo.....but...it is written to Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman and their whole ilk of Chicago School of Propaganda. TERRIBLE what they and their ideas have done/are doing to this country. Obfuscating the language is just the start of it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:59 am

. . . so the low-energy Leader chickened out and didn't go full Reichstag Fire last night? . . . sad! loser! . . . Rick Wilson said this morning that the Big Speech went over like a wet fart . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:47 pm

I didn’t watch, the sight of the orange one babbling makes me feel ill. That’s too much after a day at work.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:15 pm

Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27135
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:27 pm

I hope none of the media outlets forgot to speak of the real news of the (yester)day right before switching to the Oval Dump. There might have been a few who hadn't heard of Team Mueller's progress yet. :twisted:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 pm

Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:01 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:27 pm
I hope none of the media outlets forgot to speak of the real news of the (yester)day right before switching to the Oval Dump. There might have been a few who hadn't heard of Team Mueller's progress yet. :twisted:
Unfortunately for the NY Times, the paper has had to correct its big news of last night, now saying that the information from Manafort went not to Deripaska, a Russian "oligarch" close to Putin, but to Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, both Ukrainian "oligarchs." Terrible {!#%@}-up by Vogel and Haberman.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:46 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:59 am
. . . so the low-energy Leader chickened out and didn't go full Reichstag Fire last night? . . . sad! loser! . . . Rick Wilson said this morning that the Big Speech went over like a wet fart . . .
They said he knew the fact checkers would pick the speech apart, so some of the more idiotic claims, like the 4000 terrorists stopped at the border, were omitted. But the demonization of people from South of the Border, unmistakably stamps this speech as the work of the scumbag Miller.

I haven't looked at the instant polling, but even Wallace and Smith on Fox jumped on the false claims. Of course, Sean Hannity went deep for what seemed to him a knockout blow against the Democrats: They voted funds for fencing in 2006. (And this, I believe, is 2019; and meanwhile we've had more than a decade of DECLINING illegal immigration. I suppose that little fact won't matter to Hannity.)
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:18 pm
Balsamo wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:02 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:51 am
I have only seen one clip of AOC talking about her 70% tax plan. She doesn't do herself any favors by calling it that rather than what it is: a tax plan that goes up to a MARGINAL RATE of 70%. Two very different plans. I'm waiting for someone to mention that during Eisenhower the marginal tax rate was 90%. Personal Income Tax does catch peoples attention. I love the stories about the working poor who don't pay any (income) taxes at all voting Republica to avoid the socialism (that supports them) of the Gubment taking 70% of their money. STOOPID PEOPLE. Maybe they should still be citizens.....but allowed to vote?........ON TAX POLICY????

There is ample evidence against it.
Actually, i posted such a chart a long time ago.
Thanks for quoting this, usually I say the opposite :)

All one need do is read recent articles to see mention of the marginal tax rate of the Eisenhower era. Or indeed read the article I linked to and look at the chart included (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opin ... e=Homepage).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ost&wpmm=1
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... 70-percent

Not sure what it was Bobo was waiting for. Anyway, here's a helpful chart: https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1954.
Balsamo wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:02 pm
The result as far as i know was the explosion of national debts, and as a result, all of your american citizens owe a couple of hundred thousands of dollars to the capital holders...and this trend is not going to stop any time soon.
Along with the other, related downstream consequences.
My roommate at Northwestern back in the early 60s was an econ major, who went on to spend his whole career as an economic analyst in Washington. When a conservative guy from Arizona talked about the confiscatory 91% rate that he thought Rockefeller was paying, my roommate pointed out that only a moron would ever actually pay that rate, when income from municipal bonds was tax free.

And, I also recall, when the courts declared Du Pont Chemical a monopoly and ordered the Du Pont family to divest some of their holdings, they got the government to pass a special law allowing them to pay capital-gains taxes on the income rather than income tax, which was higher. Great to live in a democracy, where rich and poor have the equal right to sleep under bridges.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:28 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm
My roommate at Northwestern back in the early 60s was an econ major, who went on to spend his whole career as an economic analyst in Washington. When a conservative guy from Arizona talked about the confiscatory 91% rate that he thought Rockefeller was paying, my roommate pointed out that only a moron would ever actually pay that rate, when income from municipal bonds was tax free.
You mean the tax code was written to drive social behavior? SHOCKING. /// The other response for those who can is to move to tax havens like Switzerland, the Islands, Texas or Florida. There ought to be a law capturing that lost tax revenue....like taxes based on the original source....not where the earner moves subsequently to initiating the revenue stream..... Not that complicated.
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm
And, I also recall, when the courts declared Du Pont Chemical a monopoly and ordered the Du Pont family to divest some of their holdings, they got the government to pass a special law allowing them to pay capital-gains taxes on the income rather than income tax, which was higher.
You lost me there. profit or loss on sale of business assets has always been a capital gains issue...............or is that "always" since the Du Pont case? Interesting bit of history there if accurate. I have always been an advocate that the "concept" of capital gains over regular income is valid....just that it should be taxed at a HIGHER level, not lower, because it is passive income. Thats just how deep those Chicago School economists have twisted things all around.
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm
Great to live in a democracy, where rich and poor have the equal right to sleep under bridges.
I love that quote. It should always be kept in mind.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:27 am

When will Kellyanne Conway explain why her polling data went through Manafort to a Ukrainian operator with ties to Russian intelligence? Asking for a friend . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:28 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm
My roommate at Northwestern back in the early 60s was an econ major, who went on to spend his whole career as an economic analyst in Washington. When a conservative guy from Arizona talked about the confiscatory 91% rate that he thought Rockefeller was paying, my roommate pointed out that only a moron would ever actually pay that rate, when income from municipal bonds was tax free.
You mean the tax code was written to drive social behavior? SHOCKING. /// The other response for those who can is to move to tax havens like Switzerland, the Islands, Texas or Florida. There ought to be a law capturing that lost tax revenue....like taxes based on the original source....not where the earner moves subsequently to initiating the revenue stream..... Not that complicated.
So it seems to me, also. Why can't we shut down these offshore tax havens? Seems to me Hillary Clinton had a plan to do that back in 2016.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:28 am
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 pm
And, I also recall, when the courts declared Du Pont Chemical a monopoly and ordered the Du Pont family to divest some of their holdings, they got the government to pass a special law allowing them to pay capital-gains taxes on the income rather than income tax, which was higher.
You lost me there. profit or loss on sale of business assets has always been a capital gains issue...............or is that "always" since the Du Pont case? Interesting bit of history there if accurate. I have always been an advocate that the "concept" of capital gains over regular income is valid....just that it should be taxed at a HIGHER level, not lower, because it is passive income. Thats just how deep those Chicago School economists have twisted things all around.
Yes, even as I wrote that, the same thing was running through my mind. Maybe it was inheritance tax. I remember reading about it in a collection of articles from the New Yorker written by A.J. Liebling (who used to have a regular column there called the Wayward Press). But I was too lazy to check it out. Now I see that I should have done that so as to be clearer. It's a daunting task, since I read the book in 1962.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18590
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:24 pm

Its a disheartening trend: noticing how much we don't remember/compared to what we think we do.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:18 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:24 pm
Its a disheartening trend: noticing how much we don't remember/compared to what we think we do.
Good news is, I found it. Here is the case requiring Du Pont to divest itself of General Motors stock. And, although I can't cut and paste this, the gist of it is that Delaware, where the Du Pont family owned property the size of Siberia, had no property tax. It did, however, tax capital gains at the same rate as any other income. That was until the Du Ponts needed to pay the tax on their stock sales. At that point, very conveniently, a state legislator got a bill passed changing the tax rate on capital gains. Well, what's the good of being a billionaire if you can't buy a legislature? Citizens United, forward!!!

But it wasn't Congress, as I remembered. It was the Delaware legislature that did the dirty deed.
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27135
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:07 pm

(my bold)
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:46 pm
...Of course, Sean Hannity went deep for what seemed to him a knockout blow against the Democrats: They voted funds for fencing in 2006. (And this, I believe, is 2019; and meanwhile we've had more than a decade of DECLINING illegal immigration. I suppose that little fact won't matter to Hannity.)
Former campaign manager Lewandowski made that same argument about them "Open Borders" Dems. :lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:00 pm

. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5457
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by gorgeous » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:12 pm

washingtontimes-----In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Obama in 2005 saying, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.”



He quoted Mrs. Clinton in 2015 saying, “I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.”
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:40 pm

I think that's how Obama got nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" eh?

Trump has been at it indeed today, giving us yet another version of who's going to pay for that wall:
When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it.' Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they are going to write out a check.
Lying piece of {!#%@}. Who also needs psychiatric help, as he no longer makes minimal sense.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5457
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by gorgeous » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:08 pm

obama , hillary and schumer among many other dems voted for a wall when they were senators...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2951
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balmoral95 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:04 am

gorgeous wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:08 pm
obama , hillary and schumer among many other dems voted for a wall when they were senators...
Um.... Schumer is in the senate

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:27 am

gorgeous wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:08 pm
obama , hillary and schumer among many other dems voted for a wall when they were senators...
No, they voted for a fence:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_ ... ct_of_2006
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 am

Hhhhhhmmmm, I think there are vulnerable points in this proposed wall:
Image
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:05 am

you don't say:

Image
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34746
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Gord » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:41 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 am
Hhhhhhmmmm, I think there are vulnerable points in this proposed wall:
Image
I was going to say "You forgot Hawaii" but I felt a cold shudder descend upon me like a cloak of death. Then I remembered this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-forgot-poland

I forgot Poland. :|
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25599
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:45 am

I stopped paying attention a few months ago. How did Infrastructure Week go?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2951
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balmoral95 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:45 am
I stopped paying attention a few months ago. How did Infrastructure Week go?
About the last time anyone mentioned it w/o a smirk....

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:00 am




Image
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544