Is the uptick in GDP worth it?

Post by islander
In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Obama's 3% is considered by most economist as stagnant, barely
alive, but that was all George W's fault huh?

Weatherman

2018-09-12 14:53:40 UTC

Post by GLOBALIST

Obama's 3% is considered by most economist as stagnant, barely
alive, but that was all George W's fault huh?

The fact that you posted this stupid, erroneous and quite ignorant post
is YOUR fault, dip shit racist.

El Castor

2018-09-11 21:01:44 UTC

Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
What's not to like?

islander

2018-09-11 22:00:22 UTC

Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?

El Castor

2018-09-13 07:56:43 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.

As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

islander

2018-09-13 13:16:39 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
(just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
don't you?

El Castor

2018-09-13 17:12:29 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

islander

2018-09-14 14:20:44 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

El Castor

2018-09-14 19:13:35 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

islander

2018-09-14 22:12:09 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
occurred when he was in high school? It seems to me that you (and the
Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed. Why is this?

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-14 22:43:15 UTC

Post by islander
In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance
during the
Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
loss of
approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP,
but the
recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data
supporting the
premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have
worked,
at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
(just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
don't you?

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Of course the accusation is serious. But, revealing it at the last
minute seems suspicious. That being said, after Garland, there are no
norms to be followed.

islander

2018-09-15 03:57:33 UTC

Post by islander
In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance
during the
Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
loss of
approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP,
but the
recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data
supporting the
premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have
worked,
at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
(just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
don't you?

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Of course the accusation is serious. But, revealing it at the last
minute seems suspicious. That being said, after Garland, there are no
norms to be followed.

I think that it was delayed because it is so serious. The victim of the
sexual abuse wanted to remain anonymous and there was no independent
verification. I'm not sure what Feinstein was thinking in sending it to
the FBI. Any statue of limitations has long since passed. What do you
do with something like this? What is the downside when you cannot prove
it? In the news today they were drawing parallels to Anita Hill who
initially wanted to remain anonymous. What good did it do for her to
come forward?

El Castor

2018-09-15 08:21:50 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
right?

Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
highly complimentary.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation

islander

2018-09-15 14:45:35 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
right?
Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
highly complimentary.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation

Hmmm. This guy really gets around. Imagine 65 women who claim to have
known him since high school. Where did he go to high school?
Georgetown Prep, an elite all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, MD.
Possible, I suppose and the statute of limitations would have long since
expired. But, lying to Congress while under oath is current. Sen.
Hirono specifically asked him if he "ever made unwanted requests for
sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault
of a sexual nature." He said, "No." Add this to his alleged lies, not
only in this confirmation hearing, but also in his confirmation hearings
for the District Court of Appeals in 2004 and 2006.

These all raise questions about his moral character. The Democrats are
asking that the Congress take the time to fully investigate these
allegations. I think that we both know why the Republicans are ramming
this through.

We made a serious mistake in not listening to Anita Hill. We should
learn from that history.

El Castor

2018-09-15 18:28:54 UTC

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8

Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?

Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
right?
Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
highly complimentary.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation

Hmmm. This guy really gets around. Imagine 65 women who claim to have
known him since high school. Where did he go to high school?
Georgetown Prep, an elite all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, MD.
Possible, I suppose and the statute of limitations would have long since
expired. But, lying to Congress while under oath is current. Sen.
Hirono specifically asked him if he "ever made unwanted requests for
sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault
of a sexual nature." He said, "No." Add this to his alleged lies, not
only in this confirmation hearing, but also in his confirmation hearings
for the District Court of Appeals in 2004 and 2006.
These all raise questions about his moral character. The Democrats are
asking that the Congress take the time to fully investigate these
allegations. I think that we both know why the Republicans are ramming
this through.

On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
(in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
spree.

Post by islander
We made a serious mistake in not listening to Anita Hill. We should
learn from that history.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-15 19:01:21 UTC

On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}

Post by El Castor
On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
(in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
spree.

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

El Castor

2018-09-15 20:02:11 UTC

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
Spending cuts would also be helpful. Obama's $19 trillion tax and
spend orgy could not be allowed to continue.

Cutting corporate tax rates is not a new idea. The UK has gone from a
high of 52% to 19%, Sweden from 60.1% to 22%, Italy from 53% to 24%,
Denmark 50% to 22%, and Ireland 50% to 12.5%. Where was Obama and his
party while this was going on?

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-15 20:06:35 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

El Castor

2018-09-16 05:58:13 UTC

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
to go back to 35%?

Oh, and ...

"U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07

"In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07

"SAN FRANCISCO Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
would make a sizable investment in the United States."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html

islander

2018-09-16 15:04:05 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

Post by El Castor
"In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07

Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.

Post by El Castor
"SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
would make a sizable investment in the United States."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html

There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.

El Castor

2018-09-16 20:18:55 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

Post by El Castor
"SAN FRANCISCO Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
would make a sizable investment in the United States."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html

So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
their workers and the people they serve? Why not?

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-16 22:37:08 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Post by islander
There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.

Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.

.

islander

2018-09-16 23:55:01 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution." Stalin adopted a slightly different
form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
consumption.

Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.

El Castor

2018-09-17 06:01:16 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".

""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

Post by islander
Stalin adopted a slightly different
form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
consumption.
Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.

Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
pretended to pay them.

islander

2018-09-17 13:52:54 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

El Castor

2018-09-17 19:15:55 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

What I didn't miss was your mis-quote of Marx.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
... Karl Marx -- That is verbatim what he said. Marx was prescient, in
that his one sentence might as well be the governing motto of today's
liberalism.

islander

2018-09-18 01:43:18 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sometimes I think you are being intentionally stupid. Marx was
describing communism. In his Critique of Gotha Programme, he was using
the word "contribution" to describe socialism as it was used by
pre-Marxist proponents. Marx was a proponent of communism.

El Castor

2018-09-18 05:50:18 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

islander

2018-09-19 01:28:50 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

You do know the difference between socialism and communism, don't you?
Marx knew the difference and was describing it in his Critique of Gotha
Programme. Bill made a comment about a socialist economy and I
responded with the accurate Marx quote.

El Castor

2018-09-19 06:34:02 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

islander

2018-09-19 23:00:46 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

El Castor

2018-09-20 00:35:17 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

Just for the record, you can't do as I asked and supply a source for
the SPECIFIC SENTENCE you quoted. BTW -- I don't like being called
"stupid" when I point out a blatant error on your part. And just for
the record, I may have good reason to believe that I understand George
Washington's thinking on a particular subject, but that doesn't grant
me a license to compose a sentence, put quotation marks around it, and
claim he said it. Get it?

islander

2018-09-20 00:53:09 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

El Castor

2018-09-21 19:21:56 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

That Marx sentence you quoted ("From each according to his ability, to
each to his contribution.") appears nowhere in the Wikipedia page you
posted.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution)
Get it. NOWHERE. I am not "stupid", but you apparently are, or perhaps
the "L" word would be more appropriate?

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-21 22:15:10 UTC

Post by islander
The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

So, how come all these homeless people are collecting their needs and paying nothing for it? The quote should be "To each according their needs and to each according to their ability to pay for it."

islander

2018-09-22 01:29:43 UTC

Post by islander
The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

So, how come all these homeless people are collecting their needs and paying nothing for it? The quote should be "To each according their needs and to each according to their ability to pay for it."

And for those who cannot pay through no fault of their own, what is your
solution? Let them die?

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-23 02:18:15 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
So, how come all these homeless people are collecting their needs and paying nothing for it? The quote should be "To each according their needs and to each according to their ability to pay for it."

And for those who cannot pay through no fault of their own, what is your
solution? Let them die?

Well, maybe they can join the Army and get an education and later a good civilian job. That's what I did in the Marine Corps in 1967.

"Goal of 80,000 Recruits Won't Be Met, Army Secretary Says:"

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/21/goal-80000-recruits-year-wont-be-met-army-secretary-says.html

islander

2018-09-23 18:34:05 UTC

And for those who cannot pay through no fault of their own, what is your
solution? Let them die?

Well, maybe they can join the Army and get an education and later a good civilian job. That's what I did in the Marine Corps in 1967.
"Goal of 80,000 Recruits Won't Be Met, Army Secretary Says:"
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/21/goal-80000-recruits-year-wont-be-met-army-secretary-says.html

I'm not so sure about that. There were 370,000 unemployed vets in 2017.
What happened to the promise of an education and a good civilian job?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm

islander

2018-09-22 01:21:41 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

OK, I don't find that "exact" quote in that citation. It is abundantly
clear that Marx was comparing socialism with communism. The quote that
you used was about communism and intended to stress the difference. I
still say that your confusion between socialism and communism is
intentional stupidity.

El Castor

2018-09-22 06:33:12 UTC

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander

Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

Maybe you did. If so, my apologies. Can you offer an accurate cite for
this SPECIFIC Marx sentence that you quoted?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
contribution."

To be clear, Marx was not a fan of socialism. His Critique of Gotha
Programe is a criticism of socialism and a defense of communism. The
quote is from Wikipedia which I cited earlier, but may well be an
interpretation of what he wrote in his Critique. "While agreeing that
the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to
individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full
product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be
needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth." There is some debate
as to the origin of the word "contribution" or "ability" including a
debate over whether this definition of socialism is accurate. If you
read the Critique, his intent is clear. It is available on-line and not
difficult to read. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
In any case, the issue here is socialism, not communism. I do not
disagree that the quote with the word "needs" is from Marx, but assert
that it refers to communism, not socialism.

The quote is from Wikipedia. Complain to them. And, if you refuse to
understand what Marx was writing about, that sounds to me like
intentional stupidity.

You can go fuck yourself. Lest there be any doubt, I am being
intentionally rude.

islander

2018-09-22 13:37:02 UTC

Post by El Castor
You can go fuck yourself. Lest there be any doubt, I am being
intentionally rude.

Of course you are. Perhaps you would find the expression "willful
ignorance" more acceptable.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

El Castor

2018-09-22 19:02:00 UTC

Post by El Castor
You can go fuck yourself. Lest there be any doubt, I am being
intentionally rude.

Of course you are. Perhaps you would find the expression "willful
ignorance" more acceptable.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

You really don't get it. My problem is not with the accuracy of your
analysis of socialism and communism, which is of no interest to me. I
objected to your fabricated quote, and more importantly, when you were
called on it you repeatedly refused to admit what you had done. Shame
on you, professor.

islander

2018-09-23 18:29:00 UTC

Post by El Castor
You can go fuck yourself. Lest there be any doubt, I am being
intentionally rude.

Of course you are. Perhaps you would find the expression "willful
ignorance" more acceptable.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

I suspected that you don't care about the difference between socialism
and communism. Thank you for admitting it. That counts as willful
ignorance.

islander

2018-09-16 23:31:13 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?

Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

El Castor

2018-09-17 06:29:50 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?

islander

2018-09-17 13:59:17 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-17 18:13:26 UTC

Post by El Castor
I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer.

rumpelstiltskin

2018-09-17 22:26:02 UTC

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

That's like saying Rolls Royces don't pay any tax. It's true, they
don't, so what difference does that make?

islander

2018-09-18 01:26:02 UTC

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

Yes, the Laffer Curve accurately describes a relationship between tax
rate and government revenue. Unfortunately most conservatives don't
understand the Laffer Curve. It defines a maximum amount of revenue as
a function of taxation. Lower taxes below the maximum for revenue and
revenue will fall. Increase taxes above the maximum for revenue and
revenue will also fall. The trick is to find the maximum.

It is also naive to say that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations
are owned by people and the taxes that they pay do reduce the dividends
that they pay to stockholders. But, most stockholders do not invest for
the dividends. They bet on increase in stock value (or decrease if they
sell short). That is almost independent of taxes. If corporations are
people as some seem to believe, then it would only be fair that they pay
taxes like individuals - on a progressive scale.

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-18 19:59:47 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer.

Yes, the Laffer Curve accurately describes a relationship between tax
rate and government revenue. Unfortunately most conservatives don't
understand the Laffer Curve. It defines a maximum amount of revenue as
a function of taxation. Lower taxes below the maximum for revenue and
revenue will fall. Increase taxes above the maximum for revenue and
revenue will also fall. The trick is to find the maximum.
It is also naive to say that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations
are owned by people and the taxes that they pay do reduce the dividends
that they pay to stockholders. But, most stockholders do not invest for
the dividends. They bet on increase in stock value (or decrease if they
sell short). That is almost independent of taxes. If corporations are
people as some seem to believe, then it would only be fair that they pay
taxes like individuals - on a progressive scale.

Well, it seems like a fairly complex equation to me. There are many variables to consider. For example,
because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.

But if one could write an accurate equation considering all the variables, you could simply use the first derivative set to zero to determine the highest point on the graph indicating maximum tax revenue.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

islander

2018-09-19 01:44:16 UTC

Yes, the Laffer Curve accurately describes a relationship between tax
rate and government revenue. Unfortunately most conservatives don't
understand the Laffer Curve. It defines a maximum amount of revenue as
a function of taxation. Lower taxes below the maximum for revenue and
revenue will fall. Increase taxes above the maximum for revenue and
revenue will also fall. The trick is to find the maximum.
It is also naive to say that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations
are owned by people and the taxes that they pay do reduce the dividends
that they pay to stockholders. But, most stockholders do not invest for
the dividends. They bet on increase in stock value (or decrease if they
sell short). That is almost independent of taxes. If corporations are
people as some seem to believe, then it would only be fair that they pay
taxes like individuals - on a progressive scale.

Well, it seems like a fairly complex equation to me. There are many variables to consider. For example,
because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.
But if one could write an accurate equation considering all the variables, you could simply use the first derivative set to zero to determine the highest point on the graph indicating maximum tax revenue.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.

If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-20 07:42:30 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Well, it seems like a fairly complex equation to me. There are many variables to consider. For example,
because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.
But if one could write an accurate equation considering all the variables, you could simply use the first derivative set to zero to determine the highest point on the graph indicating maximum tax revenue.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

I just thought of another variable, the black market. As taxes go up, more economic activity goes underground reducing tax revenue. Why pay $8 for a pack of cigarettes when you can get them for $2 smuggled across the border?

islander

2018-09-20 14:29:01 UTC

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html

If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

El Castor

2018-09-20 18:31:45 UTC

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

My mother was a chain smoker (2 - 3 packs a day) and died of a heart
attack at 52. I am NOT a fan of smoking. Nicotine has been shown to be
as addictive as heroine, and now we have vaping!

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-21 03:10:12 UTC

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

My mother was a chain smoker (2 - 3 packs a day) and died of a heart
attack at 52. I am NOT a fan of smoking. Nicotine has been shown to be
as addictive as heroine, and now we have vaping!

I thought vaping doesn't include the really harmful stuff found in
tobacco products.

El Castor

2018-09-21 06:21:16 UTC

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:10:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

My mother was a chain smoker (2 - 3 packs a day) and died of a heart
attack at 52. I am NOT a fan of smoking. Nicotine has been shown to be
as addictive as heroine, and now we have vaping!

I thought vaping doesn't include the really harmful stuff found in
tobacco products.

Almost all Vaping products contain nicotine, which is highly addicting
-- making it harmful in my book. They also contain other chemicals
thought to be harmful, but probably not to the extent of some of the
elements of tobacco smoke. All in all, in my opinion, a disgusting
device.

"The Vape Debate: What You Need to Know"
https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/vape-debate-electronic-cigarettes#1

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-21 15:34:01 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:10:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

My mother was a chain smoker (2 - 3 packs a day) and died of a heart
attack at 52. I am NOT a fan of smoking. Nicotine has been shown to be
as addictive as heroine, and now we have vaping!

I thought vaping doesn't include the really harmful stuff found in
tobacco products.

Almost all Vaping products contain nicotine, which is highly addicting
-- making it harmful in my book. They also contain other chemicals
thought to be harmful, but probably not to the extent of some of the
elements of tobacco smoke. All in all, in my opinion, a disgusting
device.
"The Vape Debate: What You Need to Know"
https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/vape-debate-electronic-cigarettes#1

Thanks, that's a nice summary. Note it says "The worst critics of
e-cigarettes would probably argue they're a half to two-thirds less
dangerous. But from a practical view, they're probably on the order of
80% to 85% less dangerous, at least." The big question is whether
Vaping is replacing smoking (a good thing) or leading to more smoking (a
bad thing).

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-20 20:37:34 UTC

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

I knew a guy dying from emphysema at age 87. He walked around with an oxygen bottle. He would tell his customers to his swap meet site that if they wanted to visit him again they had to do it within 12 months because he wouldn't be around next year. My dad smoked 3 packs a day of Lucky Strike with no filters. He quit and then died of high BP and alcohol. I quit smoking for 16 years and just chewed tobacco. Nowadays, I smoke 2.5 cigars a day. I found a place that sells 6 cigars for 99 cents so it's not much of a financial burden. But I've heard of a smokeless nicotine device called 'Juul' but I think it sells for $48 for the starter kit. Maybe the refills are cheaper. I'll check it out. My Niece is a PA (Physian's assistant) and she has a master's degree in medicine. She once told me that it isn't the length of life that matters as much as how you enjoy life. So, go ahead and smoke if you like it.

El Castor

2018-09-20 23:41:09 UTC

It is complex which is why the Laffer Curve is an abstract idea. As to
your reasoning, tax cuts do not necessarily create an incentive to
increase output, employment or production. In the case of the
repatriation tax cut passed in the last Tax bill, in many cases the tax
cut resulted only in an opportunity to buy back stock, inflating the
value, without any change in output, employment, or production.
Alternatively, it might only result in an increase in capital investment
in automation, increasing profit margins, but reducing employment.
If someone knew how to write equations describing the Laffer Curve, it
would have been done long ago. The difficulty is that there are too
many variables that are not well understood.

Better yet, quit smoking. Death rate for lung cancer has declined since
at least 1999. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html
If you have ever witnessed someone dying from lung cancer, it is one of
the worst ways to go.

But if you are enjoying life, having it cut short may not be what you
want. Anyhow, nicotine doesn't add much, if anything, to your life.
It's all about what nicotine subtracts from your life if you are
addicted and don't get it. Instead of coffin nails, I recommend Trader
Joe's Stockyard Stout.

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-21 02:04:50 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
I knew a guy dying from emphysema at age 87. He walked around with an oxygen bottle. He would tell his customers to his swap meet site that if they wanted to visit him again they had to do it within 12 months because he wouldn't be around next year. My dad smoked 3 packs a day of Lucky Strike with no filters. He quit and then died of high BP and alcohol. I quit smoking for 16 years and just chewed tobacco. Nowadays, I smoke 2.5 cigars a day. I found a place that sells 6 cigars for 99 cents so it's not much of a financial burden. But I've heard of a smokeless nicotine device called 'Juul' but I think it sells for $48 for the starter kit. Maybe the refills are cheaper. I'll check it out. My Niece is a PA (Physian's assistant) and she has a master's degree in medicine. She once told me that it isn't the length of life that matters as much as how you enjoy life. So, go ahead and smoke if you like it.

Nicotine kills my appetite and keeps my weight down. I went in for a medical exam yesterday and my weight was 152 and my height is 5-11. The nurse was interested in my diet (mostly booze) and she had all kinds of cooking suggestions. She wants me to buy a crock pot which I wouldn't know how to use. My doctor is a vegetarian and wants me to eat beans and quit drinking. My biggest problem is my weak legs so the doctor wants me to walk 3 miles a day and do situps and pushups. He wanted to put me on physical therapy but I said I could it myself. I think I might be able to walk 3 miles if I can sit down at every bus stop no more than a block apart. Or I might carry a light chair to sit down in every 100 yards or so.

El Castor

2018-09-21 06:38:38 UTC

The more you walk, the more you will be able to walk. It's good
exercise at any age.

El Castor

2018-09-17 19:43:38 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

What I described is, and has been for years, the derivation of
economic thought all over the world -- including your socialist idols,
Sweden and Denmark, both 22%, to the economic power houses of Asia,
South Korea 24% and China 25%. At 39.5% how could US corporations be
expected to compete with their foreign rivals? To quote Thomas
Friedman, The World Is Flat. If he is correct, we were digging a very
deep hole for ourselves with our insane corporate tax policy.

islander

2018-09-18 01:16:57 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
the loopholes.

El Castor

2018-09-18 06:08:01 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.

We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.

What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.

How many times must I point out that Large corporations of course have
been paying less than 39.5% because they were forced by your idiotic
left wing corporate taxation to earn overseas, pay taxes overseas, and
invest and retain trillions overseas -- lest it be taxed if it was
returned.

Here is but one example of a contortion (not a loophole, a financial
contortion) they were forced to contrive.
"IMF explains Double Irish Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance"
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026675.shtml

Islander, you are the one with the comprehension problem. Wake up and
admit that you are wrong.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-18 15:07:31 UTC

{snip}

Post by islander
You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
the loopholes.

Yes, but that doesn't address islander's point. It's good that we have
a lower tax rate to get more profits repatriated. But, the net effect
is still a loss of revenue. If loopholes were closed, you could have a
revenue neutral net effect.

El Castor

2018-09-18 19:35:08 UTC

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

So identify unjust and inequitable loopholes, and close them, but do
not impose the highest corporate tax rate in the world on US
corporations, forcing them to earn and invest overseas -- which is
exactly what our ill begotten tax system did.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-19 01:03:36 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

El Castor

2018-09-19 07:03:28 UTC

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

We had eight years of Clinton and eight years of Obama -- and each had
a year of Democrat control of congress (103rd and 111th). Where was
the loophole closing? Where was it even proposed or promised?

Have you ever deducted the interest on a home mortgage or state and
local taxes? Are those loopholes.

Please provide a list of serious and substantial loopholes that should
be closed. Unfair or illogical deductions should be eliminated, but
failure to do that (insofar as they exist) does not justify the
highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-19 14:51:17 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Post by El Castor
Have you ever deducted the interest on a home mortgage or state and
local taxes? Are those loopholes.
Please provide a list of serious and substantial loopholes that should
be closed. Unfair or illogical deductions should be eliminated, but
failure to do that (insofar as they exist) does not justify the
highest corporate tax rate in the world.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

El Castor

2018-09-19 18:08:55 UTC

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.

But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

b***@gmail.com

2018-09-19 19:02:02 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Mortgage interest deductions are factored into the price of the house. So, I don't see the sense of doing all that paperwork.

El Castor

2018-09-19 19:41:24 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Mortgage interest deductions are factored into the price of the house. So, I don't see the sense of doing all that paperwork.

I agree. If there was no deduction, houses would just sell for less,
but now that we have it, getting rid of the damn thing would be near
impossible.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-19 21:20:24 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.
But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Obama put forth a plan that was revenue neutral. Trump didn't. That's
the bottom line.

El Castor

2018-09-19 23:40:14 UTC

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:20:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.
But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Obama put forth a plan that was revenue neutral. Trump didn't. That's
the bottom line.

Trump put forth a plan that is growth positive. Obama didn't. That is
the bottom line.

BTW -- After 8 years of Obama's $9 trillion deficit, for which the
liberals of this group uttered not a murmur, I find the sudden concern
for Trump's deficit to be more than a bit disingenuous.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-20 00:30:04 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:20:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.
But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Obama put forth a plan that was revenue neutral. Trump didn't. That's
the bottom line.

Trump put forth a plan that is growth positive. Obama didn't. That is
the bottom line.

We have come full circle back to reaching conclusions on GDP based on
one quarter or one year. Trump will be judged in due time.

Post by El Castor
BTW -- After 8 years of Obama's $9 trillion deficit, for which the
liberals of this group uttered not a murmur, I find the sudden concern
for Trump's deficit to be more than a bit disingenuous.

For the umpteenth time, the deficit was intentionally increased because
of the Great Recession.

El Castor

2018-09-20 00:39:40 UTC

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:30:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:20:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.
But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Obama put forth a plan that was revenue neutral. Trump didn't. That's
the bottom line.

Trump put forth a plan that is growth positive. Obama didn't. That is
the bottom line.

We have come full circle back to reaching conclusions on GDP based on
one quarter or one year. Trump will be judged in due time.

For the umpteenth time, the deficit was intentionally increased because
of the Great Recession.

Only if you subscribe to Keynesian economics, which I do not. From my
perspective the 2008 recession was seized upon by Obama as an excuse
for unrestrained spending.

Josh Rosenbluth

2018-09-20 01:08:50 UTC

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:30:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:20:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:51:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

The Republicans are in power. They could have closed loopholes to keep
the cut revenue neutral if they wanted to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/dealbook/trump-corporate-tax-cuts.html

Ah yes, good point -- the Obama cut, and the loopholes he never got
around to identifying.
But ... In California, for instance, corporations pay an additional
8.8%, bringing the 28% up to 36.8%. On top of that, Obama would have
taxed foreign earnings, which were also taxed in the country of
origin, and eliminated unnamed "loopholes" like state tax deduction
(?), bringing the actual rate up to what ... 50%? Oh my. Perhaps it
would be best if the government just nationalized US industry and kept
100%?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/30/these-7-highly-profitable-corporate-tax-loopholes.aspx

So, Pelosi and Schumer should identify the "loopholes" they want
closed and introduce legislation. BTW -- How do you justify your own
mortgage interest deduction?

Obama put forth a plan that was revenue neutral. Trump didn't. That's
the bottom line.

Trump put forth a plan that is growth positive. Obama didn't. That is
the bottom line.

We have come full circle back to reaching conclusions on GDP based on
one quarter or one year. Trump will be judged in due time.

For the umpteenth time, the deficit was intentionally increased because
of the Great Recession.

Only if you subscribe to Keynesian economics, which I do not. From my
perspective the 2008 recession was seized upon by Obama as an excuse
for unrestrained spending.

And by Bush43 too. Are you calling both Bush43 and Obama liars who
secretly don't believe in deficits as a way to combat a recession?

El Castor

2018-09-20 05:45:10 UTC