he also mixes the diet white powerade instead of the blue with vodka and weve literally tried to correct him on this multiple times tine come see us in the principles office
he also mixes the diet white powerade instead of the blue with vodka and weve literally tried to correct him on this multiple times tine come see us in the principles office
none of that is true.
its literally 100 percent verdad
I don't know what Warren thinks she is doing with her "costs will go down" nonsense answer about Medicare for All.
They keep asking her point blank if taxes will go up, and she just absolutely dodges the question every time. It's not like it's fooling anyone. We all know the answer. Even Bernie admits the answer, and the discussion kinda shuts down there.
They keep going after Warren about this because she outright refuses to address it, and it just exposes that her "earnest, nerdy schoolmarm who wants to just solve problems" is mostly bullshit, and she's just as much of a shifty politician as the rest of them.
She's running as the "more sensible, calmer, more practical Bernie Sanders", but the huge difference is that Bernie is honest about what he is, and she isn't.
Hell, there are many who believe her far-left rhetoric is just pandering for the primary, and she will revert to centrism when in the general election.
At this point, she might as well just come out and admit people's taxes will go up, and THEN try to make the point that it will save the middle class money overall. (I don't agree with that point, but at least she can try to claim that, and it's hard to conclusively disprove.)
Her dodging of the question is kind of like when an actor won't answer questions regarding his sexual preference, and at that point everyone knows he's gay. If he's straight, he's always clarifying immediately. Same thing here. If you dodge the "will the taxes go up" question over and over, people know that the answer is YES, and that you're just being dishonest.
Clearly this question isn't going away, so she's just fucking herself by continuing to dance around it.
i hope the dems don't wise up and stop doing stupid shit and put yo gabba gabba in the lead. that would be troublesome for trumpy
If she said "taxes will go up but your overall costs will go down because private insurance companies won't be taking billions out of what americans pay for healthcare", half the country will just hear her say "taxes will go up" over and over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
That also wouldn't be an accurate statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanIf she said "taxes will go up but your overall costs will go down because private insurance companies won't be taking billions out of what americans pay for healthcare", half the country will just hear her say "taxes will go up" over and over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Even Bernie's own report shows that, while private insurance companies do take billions in profits, that amounts to 0.6% of total healthcare expenditures.
So cutting out the insurance company profits will do next to nothing for the average person.
Same with cutting out insurance company expenditures such as advertising and lobbying. Drop in the bucket.
However, you are correct that half the country will just hear "taxes will go up" and tune out everything else. That's why she's afraid to say it, but since it's become a point of repeated criticism where she ends up looking foolish and dishonest, she might as well come out and say it at this point.
In Warren's defense, the alternative Democratic hybrid type solutions such as "Medicare for All Who Want It" are nonsense, and don't even make sense when you think about them. That's basically just proposing that the government get into the health insurance business. Most Democrats have no fucking clue when it comes to the true consequences of a socialized medicine system, especially one built on top of our already-dysfunctional for-profit system.
For such a system to even have a snowball's chance in hell of not being a disaster, we would first need a huge influx of qualified doctors, immediate construction of new medical testing facilities with enough trained staff to fill them, a complete pricing restructure to pay doctors, labs, and test facilities more in line of what they get in other first world countries (better known as "much less"), and a general sign-on by the public that they will be agreeing to long wait times and denied tests/procedures for any non-emergency health issue.
The last thing any Democrats should want would be a 2020 victory followed by a conversion into socialized medicine. It will be an epic failure, and Republicans will have a huge 2024 election basically just campaigning with, "Make Health Care Work Again".
The first thing "they" need to do about health care is to STOP allowing hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to rip you off.
American hospitals are "allowed" to charge whatever the fuck they want for the same procedure. $10,000? $50,000? You don't have health insurance then that will be $90,000. Fuck you, fucking Motherfuckers.
Then you got the fucking pharmaceutical companies that charge in America $1,000 but in Canada charge $50 for the exact same medicine. Enough, it's time to seize their fucking profits and force them to charge reasonable prices and stop fucking people over because they are greedy.
https://www.fraud-magazine.com/uploa...ud-schemes.jpg
Jayjami: Total bs, not even worth a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlySeparate from the issue of Biden showing his age-related mental deterioration, it makes total sense to tax capital gains the same as earned income after adjusting capital gains for inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
P.S. In fact, because the unsystematic risk of financial assets can be diversified away, while that of human capital cannot, earned income should face a lower tax rate than inflation-adjusted capital gains of financial assets in order to put them in a comparable footing with respect to compensation for risk-bearing.
Ignoring the issue of the ability of financial asset investors to diversify away unsystematic risk, please explain why inflation-adjusted capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
She’s openly saying that she will use Bernie’s plan and Bernie is openly saying that his plan will raise the taxes of the middle class but she refuses to say it. Just a horrible political move that has no upside. Now this has become a huge issue and she looks dishonest and deceitful. Just another unnecessary, self-inflicted wound that benefits Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
First para is exactly what’s going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by lol wow
some blockchain-fintech soft bank offered me so much money to come aboard that i didnt think their business model could sustain it so i passed. its just fucking wild out there.
pnw less so but its not like its going to be out here in ny, where tech wagers seriously are like 10-15% higher than they were in 2001. i work remote so i was able to keep my package intact when i moved but if i had to survive on nyc tech wages i would absolutely just start doing heroin constantly.
My kid bounced from Zappos to some San Diego startup doing a food delivery to your seat app for sports stadiums for 8 months quit and literally just landed in Manhattan in another partially Amazon backed startup.
She sells her car and all her stuff and parachutes into the city. Stayed with a $300k Bloomberg kid in a tower apt while she was looking for her own place.
Her startup is doing an app that is so pointless and narrow that even she laughs. There is so much money chasing so few ideas. Investment capital has no place to go. You write that you didn’t think your suitor could sustain itself. That’s not how the kids think. It’s about the new experience. New group, new city. Vegan donut shop across the street.
You talk to the kids and they have an almost apocalyptic view. It’s all about what you are doing now. The quality of your present experience. I came from a generation where you paid your dues and delayed gratification for tomorrow. They know tomorrow ain’t gonna be so great. They travel light, bank their cash and surf the moment.
It is a crazy surreal time in our economy.
So I have to disagree about the NYC wages. It appears this is exactly the place and time.
Edit
As an aside she was telling me about online delivery in the city and how low the odds are that you will actually receive what you order.
There are multiple issues ... UPS skim seems like an employee benefit. She has some funny stories already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarFirst para is exactly what’s going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
My kid bounced from Zappos to some San Diego startup doing a food delivery to your seat app for sports stadiums for 8 months quit and literally just landed in Manhattan in another partially Amazon backed startup.
She sells her car and all her stuff and parachutes into the city. Stayed with a $300k Bloomberg kid in a tower apt while she was looking for her own place.
Her startup is doing an app that is so pointless and narrow that even she laughs. You write that you didn’t think your suitor could sustain itself. That’s not how the kids think. It’s about the new experience. New group, new city. Vegan donut shop across the street.
You talk to the kids and they have an almost apocalyptic view. It’s all about what you are doing now. The quality of your present experience. I came from a generation where you paid your dues and delayed gratification for tomorrow. They know tomorrow ain’t gonna be so great. They travel light, bank their cash and surf the moment.
It is a crazy surreal time in our economy.
So I have to disagree about the NYC wages. It appears this is exactly the place and time.
yeah but im not really talking about outlier startups with amazon backing. thats fringe. google also pays enormous salaries for their nyc campus. but the mean salaries here have failed to scale with real estate prices, perhaps because real estate prices here were laughable when one could afford a 2br apartment in SF while on welfare. there has always been this awful 'well im just going to grind it out for the priv of [cynical description of nyc living goes here]'.
it does sound like your daughter is tending to her career garden perfectly, btw. hopefully she isnt pricing herself out of her next hop but there are worse problems to have.
If Pete Buttguy was 20 years younger, I bet he’d have your vote!Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA
A 39% capital gains rate would discourage new investments in the stock market and more importantly, discourage movement of capital within the marketplace. Let’s say I owned IBM for 30 years, not happy with my returns, wanted to invest in a startup called Apple. If I had to pay 39% taxes, I would be less inclined to sell my IBM stock. Take macro economics 101 and get back to me if you don’t understand what a disaster this would be to the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyJayjami: Total bs, not even worth a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Ignoring the issue of the ability of financial asset investors to diversify away unsystematic risk, please explain why inflation-adjusted capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
LOL you telling me to take an intro course to macroeconomics course to learn about that argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by JayjamiA 39% capital gains rate would discourage new investments in the stock market and more importantly, discourage movement of capital within the marketplace. Let’s say I owned IBM for 30 years, not happy with my returns, wanted to invest in a startup called Apple. If I had to pay 39% taxes, I would be less inclined to sell my IBM stock. Take macro economics 101 and get back to me if you don’t understand what a disaster this would be to the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
You numbskull! I took a slew of graduate economics courses on my way to earning two post graduate degrees specializing in finance. And when I repeatedly heard that supply side argument from finance professors that you simplistically parrot here, I, too, accepted it as economic gospel for many years.
Only later when considering the interplay between economics and politics that such an argument ignores, did I realize that when the tax code gives preferential treatment of capital gains versus earned income that over time the wealth and political power it can garner ends up becoming increasingly skewed towards those who don’t have to work for a living. Meaning, it promotes ever-increasing wealth inequality. And that leads to the wealthy garnering an ever increasing proportion of political power to the detriment of most everyone else.
Which is exactly what has happened in the US over the past four decades with the onset of the Reagan Revolution and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United blessing of unlimited campaign spending by superficially “unaffiliated” “legal persons”, and quite anonymously at that. And is a huge reason why a 6-six bankrupt fake billionaire sociopathic narcissistic reality TV star was able to demagogue his way into first capturing the GOP nomination for president AND then defeat the corporately-compromised establishment Democratic Party candidate in the general election.
So, yeah. We’ve tried that tax policy and it has brought us Trump and the utter debasing of the GOP as it keeps itself tied to Trump and his trampling of the Constitution in order to keep from losing relevance with the voters.
Just because you use a lot of big words doesn’t make your argument any more compelling. Here’s how you become a success in America. Work your ass off, save your money and invest it for your retirement so you don’t have to be a WalMart greeter at age 70. Don’t blow it on internet poker, cocaine and tranny prostitutes like Jewdonk. You essentially want to penalize people who “did the right thing” and didn’t rely on the government to take care of them in their old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyLOL you telling me to take an intro course to macroeconomics course to learn about that argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
You numbskull! I took a slew of graduate economics courses on my way to earning two post graduate degrees specializing in finance. And when I repeatedly heard that supply side argument from finance professors that you simplistically parrot here, I, too, accepted it as economic gospel for many years.
Only later when considering the interplay between economics and politics that such an argument ignores, did I realize that when the tax code gives preferential treatment of capital gains versus earned income that over time the wealth and political power it can garner ends up becoming increasingly skewed towards those who don’t have to work for a living. Meaning, it promotes ever-increasing wealth inequality. And that leads to the wealthy garnering an ever increasing proportion of political power to the detriment of most everyone else.
Which is exactly what has happened in the US over the past four decades with the onset of the Reagan Revolution and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United blessing of unlimited campaign spending by superficially “unaffiliated” “legal persons”, and quite anonymously at that. And is a huge reason why a 6-six bankrupt fake billionaire sociopathic narcissistic reality TV star was able to demagogue his way into first capturing the GOP nomination for president AND then defeat the corporately-compromised establishment Democratic Party candidate in the general election.
So, yeah. We’ve tried that tax policy and it has brought us Trump and the utter debasing of the GOP as it keeps itself tied to Trump and his trampling of the Constitution in order to keep from losing relevance with the voters.
There's nothing worse than faggots like mumbles thinking they know how to spend other people's money
Oh wait sorry this was a two parter you actually get to watch democrats squander it all in Cali lets give them more money you fucking idiot
LIKE THEY HAVE LITERALLY BEEN TURNING OFF THE FUCKING POWER HERE TO FIGHT FIRES CUZ LOL
yeah because only complete nerds go to the doctor but everyone pays taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
That's a pretty bold move going after doctors on todgers site I HAPPEN TO LOVE DOCTORS AND THEIR RELATED FAMILIES
maybe i missed this but how did you end up a truck driver?Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyLOL you telling me to take an intro course to macroeconomics course to learn about that argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
You numbskull! I took a slew of graduate economics courses on my way to earning two post graduate degrees specializing in finance.
i have met more than one truck driver that had a "nice" job but burnt out and decided to drive a truck. Truck drivers make decent enough money and lots of them get to pick and choose when they work
yeah i'm just saying it's a little odd that a guy claiming to hold two post-graduate degrees in the world of finance now drives a truck and also says he rarely showers
like was there some massive coke habit at play here? what's the deal
1 - the idea of locking in investments/limiting movement of capital due to high capital gains tax rates wasn't something discussed in my freshman Econ 155 or Econ 156, circa 1974...it was discussed in my Master's in Taxation Tax Concepts and Theory course circa 1990--don't remember the course numberQuote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyLOL you telling me to take an intro course to macroeconomics course to learn about that argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
You numbskull! I took a slew of graduate economics courses on my way to earning two post graduate degrees specializing in finance. And when I repeatedly heard that supply side argument from finance professors that you simplistically parrot here, I, too, accepted it as economic gospel for many years.
Only later when considering the interplay between economics and politics that such an argument ignores, did I realize that when the tax code gives preferential treatment of capital gains versus earned income that over time the wealth and political power it can garner ends up becoming increasingly skewed towards those who don’t have to work for a living. Meaning, it promotes ever-increasing wealth inequality. And that leads to the wealthy garnering an ever increasing proportion of political power to the detriment of most everyone else.
Which is exactly what has happened in the US over the past four decades with the onset of the Reagan Revolution and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United blessing of unlimited campaign spending by superficially “unaffiliated” “legal persons”, and quite anonymously at that. And is a huge reason why a 6-six bankrupt fake billionaire sociopathic narcissistic reality TV star was able to demagogue his way into first capturing the GOP nomination for president AND then defeat the corporately-compromised establishment Democratic Party candidate in the general election.
So, yeah. We’ve tried that tax policy and it has brought us Trump and the utter debasing of the GOP as it keeps itself tied to Trump and his trampling of the Constitution in order to keep from losing relevance with the voters.
2 - Mumbles is right about economics and politics interplay...(economics) the offshoring of manufacturing/free trade was suppose to make everything better for all Americans as there would be a net gain in output/income nationwide, according to Morris Saft, my Milton Friedman worshiping instructor of Econ 155...(politics) but wasn't foreseen by Morris and what Americans have experienced was the wealth gains arising from free trade/offshoring manufacturing/union busting/tolerated illegal immigration would all go to top 1% on income earners, while everyone else was lucky to maintain their income level. My generation was misled. There are a number of problems with capitalism as the millennials realize --- the current wave of populism is overdue -- this election cycle may be the start of the 3rd Red Scare in American history.
YANG GANG MF
When I was an assistant prof in a tenure-track position, I made the “mistake” of watching the documentary called “The Corporation”, and it planted the seed in my mind that I was working for the wrong team. That seed germinated rather quickly, and I dropped out of academics, and most played poker full time for a few years. But I got burned out on it, and eventually took a flyer on getting into trucking after talking with an oil field trucker at a poker game who mentioned making good money driving truck. I adopted the mindset that I work the job with the focus of being of service to everyone I came in contact with in the job, and I grew to love the work, and my dispatchers love the job I do. Plus, it’s a lot of fun to drive a big rig. Especially in challenging traffic or schedule situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
skatz
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyWhen I was an assistant prof in a tenure-track position, I made the “mistake” of watching the documentary called “The Corporation”, and it planted the seed in my mind that I was working for the wrong team. That seed germinated rather quickly, and I dropped out of academics, and most played poker full time for a few years. But I got burned out on it, and eventually took a flyer on getting into trucking after talking with an oil field trucker at a poker game who mentioned making good money driving truck. I adopted the mindset that I work the job with the focus of being of service to everyone I came in contact with in the job, and I grew to love the work, and my dispatchers love the job I do. Plus, it’s a lot of fun to drive a big rig. Especially in challenging traffic or schedule situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
link to The Corporation on youtube.com
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6FORM%3DHDRSC3
link to Wikipedia article on "The Corporation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co...on_(2003_film)
well this thread is officially in bloom.
Hillary Clinton actually said she believes Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/polit...ard/index.html
No she didn't. Did you read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
she aint wrong.
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians."Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanNo she didn't. Did you read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
do you interpret "grooming" her as not calling her a russian asset?
calling her a russian asset makes all democrats look insaneQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Yeah, she did. Did YOU read the article??Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanNo she didn't. Did you read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
This is the most press Gabbard has received to date, lead stories on Drudge and Google News. Halfway down the page on Yahoo.
Is that so?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-cont.../Trumputin.jpg
I guess if you mean Russia asset as someone that if elected would be a good thing for Russia, then yeah. I don't think Hillary would be wrong though. Tulsi said she would immediately withdraw all Troops from the middle east, that would be great for Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsYeah, she did. Did YOU read the article??Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
I was assuming you meant Russia asset as in she was secretly working to help Russia, which she obviously didn't say or imply. Was probably wrong assumption now that I think about it. My bad.