What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Have I indicated how angry I am about this, yet?

It's pretty much the most ignorant, toneless argument for reducing a tax on the rich that he could've made. Ranks right up there with St. Ronald of Cielo and his "welfare queens".
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Have I indicated how angry I am about this, yet?

I see you're still pushing for Agenda 2030, where people own nothing and are only provided what their lords allow. It's called serfdom, it's been tried for hundreds of years, and it was terrible. Freedom is so much better.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I see you're still pushing for Agenda 2030, where people own nothing and are only provided what their lords allow. It's called serfdom, it's been tried for hundreds of years, and it was terrible. Freedom is so much better.

Responding to this because it is what so many Trump worshipers would say. Aside from being mind numbingly stupid, it's the opposite of what those opposed to this tax bill are advocating, including Scooby, who want to ensure that those who own little or nothing get something instead of letting the Lords keep it all. You would think someone with enough wits to operate a keyboard (or vote) would be capable of figuring that out.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Responding to this because it is what so many Trump worshipers would say. Aside from being mind numbingly stupid, it's the opposite of what those opposed to this tax bill are advocating, including Scooby, who want to ensure that those who own little or nothing get something instead of letting the Lords keep it all. You would think someone with enough wits to operate a keyboard (or vote) would be capable of figuring that out.

It is magnificent that the people really looking to pen in humanity use as their thought-terminating cliches accusations that their opponents are trying to do this.

It's just like Dump projecting all his criminality on others.

And they catch a lot of people like this. There seems to be a large segment of the population who will do anything to avoid responsibility, and part of what they "do" is what they think. Their belief in reality is internal and imposed outwards upon the world, not external and imposed inwards upon them. They alter the reality that they honestly see to fit what is most convenient for them.

I don't think Flag is lying when he says stuff like this. I don't think he's even been brainwashed by someone. It is that he has brainwashed himself. It's like the woman who honestly believes the married man she's been having an affair with for fifteen years is going to leave his wife for her. She means it when she says that. She has to believe that because facing the truth would hurt too much.
 
Last edited:
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Goldman Sachs report says not only will the tax cuts not help but may have negative impact. LOL

http://hill.cm/BcWrDah
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

It is magnificent that the people really looking to pen in humanity use as their thought-terminating cliches accusations that their opponents are trying to do this.

It's just like Dump projecting all his criminality on others.

And they catch a lot of people like this. There seems to be a large segment of the population who will do anything to avoid responsibility, and part of what they "do" is what they think. Their belief in reality is internal and imposed outwards upon the world, not external and imposed inwards upon them. They alter the reality that they honestly see to fit what is most convenient for them.

I don't think Flag is lying when he says stuff like this. I don't think he's even been brainwashed by someone. It is that he has brainwashed himself. It's like the woman who honestly believes the married man she's been having an affair with for fifteen years is going to leave his wife for her. She means it when she says that. She has to believe that because facing the truth would hurt too much.

Remember, people like flag are convinced that lower taxes will actually have companies 1) give everyone raises, 2) encourage research, and 3) lower costs to consumers. Even when the evidence is quite the contrary, including companies admitting that they plan on giving more money to share holders.

And they also think that trickle down economics is realistic- again, with all of the economic evidence pointing the other direction. Not wanting to admit that giving rich people more money doesn't mean they spend more- they already spend what they can- so they just save more. This tying perfectly good money into the banking system to not work in the economy.

To somehow tie that to some kind of lord-serf system like that is pretty hilarious. Sad, too.

Our economic system isn't that hard. PEOPLE need to spend money. It's great to encourage people to save money, if they plan on eventually spend it before they die. Otherwise, savings just takes money out of circulation. If people don't spend money on "stuff" we have no economy.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Responding to this because it is what so many Trump worshipers would say. Aside from being mind numbingly stupid, it's the opposite of what those opposed to this tax bill are advocating, including Scooby, who want to ensure that those who own little or nothing get something instead of letting the Lords keep it all. You would think someone with enough wits to operate a keyboard (or vote) would be capable of figuring that out.

So you have absolutely zero desire to make something out of yourself, instead of just taking what others have out of jealousy for their position? Talk about unethical, although you might see it as temporarily satisfying.

And then what happens when the lords leave and you can no longer have someone to provide for you? All I'm looking for is independence. I have no desire to be enslaved to someone else.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

So you have absolutely zero desire to make something out of yourself, instead of just taking what others have out of jealousy for their position? Talk about unethical, although you might see it as temporarily satisfying.

And then what happens when the lords leave and you can no longer have someone to provide for you? All I'm looking for is independence. I have no desire to be enslaved to someone else.

Then move to Somalia. Or Ethiopia. Any civilized society will not meet your burden. Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Then move to Somalia. Or Ethiopia. Any civilized society will not meet your burden. Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.

And please takes others like you with you.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Remember, people like flag are convinced that lower taxes will actually have companies 1) give everyone raises, 2) encourage research, and 3) lower costs to consumers. Even when the evidence is quite the contrary, including companies admitting that they plan on giving more money to share holders.

At least until the gain of capital allows a savvy yet determined entrepreneur to undercut the greedy.

And they also think that trickle down economics is realistic- again, with all of the economic evidence pointing the other direction. Not wanting to admit that giving rich people more money doesn't mean they spend more- they already spend what they can- so they just save more. This tying perfectly good money into the banking system to not work in the economy.

And who said they had to spend more money? Are you seriously just jealous that they've chosen to prepare their family for extenuating circumstances that you have to steal from them? Or do you have zero ability to give them any sort of a good benefit that they will receive if they part with their money?

To somehow tie that to some kind of lord-serf system like that is pretty hilarious. Sad, too.

It's called being independent. Owning things, not renting. Put yourself out on your own for a couple years, without a pot to **** in. It'll do wonders to your character.

Our economic system isn't that hard. PEOPLE need to spend money. It's great to encourage people to save money, if they plan on eventually spend it before they die. Otherwise, savings just takes money out of circulation. If people don't spend money on "stuff" we have no economy.

And what would be so bad about people saving their money? That's also sending a message, that the price being offered for something desired is too high. Not a single one of you is even considering deflation as an answer to financial turbulence. That would be a true tax cut.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Then move to Somalia. Or Ethiopia. Any civilized society will not meet your burden. Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.

I have no desire to move to Minnesota's Twin Cities at this time.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Flaggy's Chippewa name is Walks on Knuckles.

Give his clan another 1.8 million years and they'll understand some of this. By then, we should have single payer healthcare anyway.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

At least until the gain of capital allows a savvy yet determined entrepreneur to undercut the greedy.



And who said they had to spend more money? Are you seriously just jealous that they've chosen to prepare their family for extenuating circumstances that you have to steal from them? Or do you have zero ability to give them any sort of a good benefit that they will receive if they part with their money?



It's called being independent. Owning things, not renting. Put yourself out on your own for a couple years, without a pot to **** in. It'll do wonders to your character.



And what would be so bad about people saving their money? That's also sending a message, that the price being offered for something desired is too high. Not a single one of you is even considering deflation as an answer to financial turbulence. That would be a true tax cut.

Thank you for pointing out that you don't understand our consumer economic system.

There's nothing wrong with saving assuming that you plan on spending it before you die. I pointed that out. Our economy runs on people spending money on stuff. When you save for the sake of power, that removes money from the overall economy, and that's not a good thing.

Not sure what your point about unearned income tax is. It's unearned, it provides nothing to the overall economy, therefore should be taxed at normal income rates instead of some kind of lower amount. There's zero economic benefit to stock trading. So it should not gain an advantage. One should get an advantage for working hard and transforming something into something else that people buy. That's a benefit to our economic model.

Funny to hear the "jealous" argument. Which is an argument that isn't one. I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people earning benefits that they don't earned (unearned income tax questions), and I'm not a fan of people saving for the means of power.

And how that ties to people thinking that they are for a lord-serf system- you've got to be joking. YOUR arguments for taxes and economy are creating a lord-serf system. Again, you clearly have no clue how our economy really works.
 
So you have absolutely zero desire to make something out of yourself, instead of just taking what others have out of jealousy for their position? Talk about unethical, although you might see it as temporarily satisfying.

And then what happens when the lords leave and you can no longer have someone to provide for you? All I'm looking for is independence. I have no desire to be enslaved to someone else.
No that’s not what he said or implied fraudbot, time to recalibrate.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Thank you for pointing out that you don't understand our consumer economic system.

There's nothing wrong with saving assuming that you plan on spending it before you die. I pointed that out. Our economy runs on people spending money on stuff. When you save for the sake of power, that removes money from the overall economy, and that's not a good thing.

Not sure what your point about unearned income tax is. It's unearned, it provides nothing to the overall economy, therefore should be taxed at normal income rates instead of some kind of lower amount. There's zero economic benefit to stock trading. So it should not gain an advantage. One should get an advantage for working hard and transforming something into something else that people buy. That's a benefit to our economic model.

Funny to hear the "jealous" argument. Which is an argument that isn't one. I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people earning benefits that they don't earned (unearned income tax questions), and I'm not a fan of people saving for the means of power.

And how that ties to people thinking that they are for a lord-serf system- you've got to be joking. YOUR arguments for taxes and economy are creating a lord-serf system. Again, you clearly have no clue how our economy really works.

I don't recall making a point about "unearned income tax". Heck, I don't recall stating anything within that post about trading assets for different amounts. However, one thing y'all seem to always forget is that the "lower rates" only apply for long-term gains. Short term are still at the full rate. It's a question of if you're allowing the capital raised from the public to be properly given a chance by the company to do exactly what you want to see as advantageous. As we talked about before, you want money to move. So you need to give them a reason to move it, and in order for them to actually agree to it, they must see some sort of benefit from it. That's how any sort of economy, diplomacy, pretty much anything in this world, works.

You might not have a problem with rich people in general, but you certainly have a problem with what they have, or at the relationship to possession thereof. Why else would you want to insist upon something from them? And if you're going to continue to press for more from them, what benefit do they get in return to a relationship with that entity? It's just like the story of the guys at the pub that was relayed by Mrs. Sanders about a week ago. If there's no longer a benefit, they still have the option of skipping town. And then socialism has run out of other people's money.

The lord-serf system is created by means of one word: Dependency. Create a world where the serfs own nothing, are able to get nothing, and then become so desperate to a lord in order to be able to get what they desire. The lord requires something in return for the services. You need only look towards the middle ages to understand what that is.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Did they actually have a final draft of the tax bill they voted on, or did they commit the same sin of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" they groused about.

Passing a bill without reading it does not meet any plausible standard of "fiduciary responsibility".

Seems neither side is willing to be responsible.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Did they actually have a final draft of the tax bill they voted on, or did they commit the same sin of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" they groused about.

Passing a bill without reading it does not meet any plausible standard of "fiduciary responsibility".

Seems neither side is willing to be responsible.

If you're comparing this to Obamacare then you have it wrong and you live in fantasy land. There's no similarity. At all.
 
Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

WASHINGTON — A Republican requirement that Congress consider the full cost of major legislation threatened to derail the party’s $1.5 trillion tax rewrite last week. So lawmakers went on the offensive to discredit the agency performing the analysis.

In 2015, Republicans changed the budget rules in Congress so that official scorekeepers would be required to analyze the potential economic impact of major legislation when determining how it would affect federal revenues.

But on Thursday, hours before they were set to vote on the largest tax cut Congress has considered in years, Senate Republicans opened an assault on that scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and its analysis, which showed the Senate plan would not, as lawmakers contended, pay for itself but would add $1 trillion to the federal budget deficit.

Public statements and messaging documents obtained by The New York Times show a concerted push by Republican lawmakers to discredit a nonpartisan agency they had long praised. Party leaders circulated two pages of “response points” that declared “the substance, timing and growth assumptions of J.C.T.’s ‘dynamic’ score are suspect.” Among their arguments was that the joint committee was using “consistently wrong” growth models to assess the effect the tax cuts would have on hiring, wages and investment.

Democrats take note. You have to fight dirty. Why you haven't for so many years is beyond this voter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/...ation-estimate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top