Who survived Friday the 13th?

Or just a new page for the weekend.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Isee Flag has tilted Charlie a little. Come on Charlie, use your smarts on him, not name calling. Maybe this will help. I think the trade imbalance is an issue & it’s getting worse. What say you Flagster?
    (good chart at the link)

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/m-whos_the_real_outsourcer_romney_or_obama.html

    On CNN last Sunday, Candy Crowley challenged one of Obama’s campaign advisers on the campaign’s decision to continue airing these ads, even though fact-checkers have found them false. You can watch the interview on The Blaze (click here).

    So why is the Obama campaign making a mountain out of this molehill? Perhaps they are doing so in order to hide the real mountain. President Obama has been outsourcing American jobs on a grand scale. Take his lack of response to Chinese trade manipulations.

    Under Obama’s stewardship, Chinese factories sell to America freely with minimal restraint, but should American factories desire to sell their products to China, they face barrier after barrier. By permitting this unequal trading arrangement, Obama prevents the 1.2 million American manufacturing jobs lost since October 2008 from coming back.

    As we related in the May 9 American Thinker (click here), President Obama recently let the Chinese government raise tariffs upon GM’s made-in-America large-engine cars from about 25% to about 47%. As a result, even though GM is mainly owned by the U.S. government and by GM’s unions, it agreed to build Cadillac factories in China and to give Cadillac’s top-flight technology to its Chinese partner and competitor. Why? GM knew that it couldn’t continue to sell American-made Cadillacs to the Chinese market.

    The Chinese government also extorted electric car technology from GM, including its state-of-the-art battery technology, as a condition for producing and selling electric cars in China. In effect, Obama is outsourcing technology that he took over from GM’s American creditors when he “rescued” GM from bankruptcy. As a result of his technology giveaways, not only do American workers lose jobs in the present, but they will continue to lose future jobs.

    Similarly, by letting China place a 30% tariff on American-made excavators, Obama virtually forced Caterpillar, one of America’s most efficient manufacturers, to build new small crawler factories in China and give technology to its Chinese partner in order to access the Chinese market, as we pointed out in the October 4, 2010 American Thinker (click here).

    Then there are American meat products. China lets in American grains, but not American meat. It uses a variety of subterfuges to keep meat out, even a tariff of about 105.4% on chicken feet, claiming that America is dumping them on the Chinese market at a price lower than the U.S. price, as we pointed out in the Feb. 15, 2010 American Thinker (click here).

    And tariffs are only one of the tools China uses to keep out American products. China is manipulating the dollar-yuan exchange rate so that American products are estimated to be about 25% to 40% more expensive in China than they would otherwise be, and Chinese products are about 25% to 40% less expensive in the United States than they would otherwise be.

    And the Chinese government also keeps American products away from its 1.3 billion people through government fiat. In March 30, 2011 testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Dr. Derek Scissors, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained one of its methods:

    In most sectors [of China’s economy], there is no market of 1.3 billion. Instead, there is what is left after the SOEs [State Owned Enterprises] are handed the bulk. This applies, of course, to American companies looking to serve the Chinese market. It is no surprise that official data indicate the foreign investment share has plummeted in the past few years. The truncated market extends to U.S. exports. The various forms of subsidy provided to SOEs are far bigger barriers to American goods than the yuan’s peg to the dollar. Subsidization has been and can be increased to offset currency changes.

    The following chart tells the overall trade story through statistics. Under Obama’s stewardship, every month for the last 27 months, U.S. net exports (exports minus imports) in goods to China have fallen steadily due to the Chinese government keeping out made-in-America products. Month after month, our trade deficit with China worsens, setting a new record:

    In terms of workers, negative net exports of $300 billion per year represent about 3 million productive American manufacturing jobs lost (assuming $100,000 product per worker). Those jobs, in effect outsourced to China, could have come back to the United States had Obama required trade reciprocity by invoking the WTO rule for trade deficit countries that Nixon invoked when he imposed a trade-balancing tariff on August 15, 1971.

    But instead, President Obama continued Clinton’s and Bush’s policy of giving away American manufacturing jobs to the trade-manipulating countries. Since January 2010, net exports to China have worsened by about $3 billion per month. That’s 30,000 middle-class manufacturing jobs that Obama has outsourced to China each month. No wonder U.S. unemployment is still high!

    • What does a trade imbalance mean to you?

      Equate your answer to the trade imbalance you have with your local grocery store, and explain why that trade imbalance with your grocery store worries you.

    • Further, explain how the Chinese governments ignorant economic policies improve the wealth of its people by denying those people cheap products.

      Additionally, explain why the US government should do the same ignorant policies against its own Americans so to punish the Chinese government. Please offer the mechanisms that explain that making Americans poor causes the Chinese to feel pain.

    • PS:
      If you require a reference and a thesis so to offer a basis for your explanation, please refer to:

      An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776)

      Though this essay and thesis actually disproves your mercantilistic theory of trade imbalance, LOI, (yes, back in 1776, Smith fully understand trade (im)balances and theory – they had it back then, too) it will give you at least a platform for the dialogue.

      • What have you been eating? ugg, DOOGY breath!

        Sorry but no, I’m not taking homework assignments from you at this time. Another time, another subject, I might play. And I give you credit Flag, you are very informed on this subject. I think you may be too vested in what you see as an absolute to consider others viewpoints unless they agree with yours…You might also want to give me some credit for sometimes have a worthwhile, or original thought.

        Back in 1776, no one could envision todays world, which does not make the principal invalid, but possibly the environment. Back then, currency was gold, silver or trade goods. Today you have multiple nations trading fiat currency. At the same time, they are all in a race to devalue their currency lower than their trading partners. Then there is the sales of debt, where they purchase treasury bonds from each other. (was it last week France sold some with a negative interest return rate?) And then you have China holding a high percentage of our debt stealing our technology, closing their markets to our goods while making theirs too cheap to not buy. I see it as some sort of game with Europe, China and the US all racing to the bottom. Kinda like musical chairs or better yet, “hot potato”..The kicker, there are multiple “potato’s” being passed around. You have talked several times about hyper-inflation coming. Is this not just part of that, with each nation knowing this is going to truly blow, but trying to make sure it’s worse for the other guys? We may all lose, but it’s better to lose a finger than a hand, arm, or everything.

        • No, LOI

          I do not consider the view points which claim 2+2=5, sorry.

          Again, you still need to establish your economic principle by answering my question about your relationship with your grocery store. Add to it, what happens if your grocer doesn’t want to buy from you, but you still buy from him. Does it matter?

          The Wealth of Nations is free trade, not mercantilism – the slow erosion of the Western economic situation is such a proof.

          Your theory of money is flawed – there is nothing special about gold/silver vs. Fed Reserve note other than the latter is easily manufactured. That creates other problems, but it has no reference to this topic.

          And you are right, the are all mercantilists and the race to the bottom is probable regarding the devaluations of currency.

          China closing their markets to goods is wholly irrelevant – it hurts China not the US.
          Remember, you buy solutions – so if you refuse to buy solutions, you impoverish yourself, not the one trying to sell.

          There are always buyers somewhere at some price – Say’s law – so buyers do not have to worry about trying to sell. If it isn’t the Chinese it will be Europe, India, Russia or S. America or somewhere else, like other Americans.

          I said high inflation – though hyper-inflation is possible, I do not think it likely – as I posted before, the damage would be catastrophic, and the bankers know it.

          So, instead of arguing by specious example – which is a fallacy – argue by principle. What principle are you invoking to support your examples?

          • Arg!
            One more time….
            There are always buyers somewhere at some price – Say’s law – so SELLERS do not have to worry about trying to sell. If it isn’t the Chinese it will be Europe, India, Russia or S. America or somewhere else, like other Americans.

          • My relationship with my grocery store does not exist. Somehow, food just appears in the fridge(wifeofillusion might have something to do with that, but won’t admit anything).

            “Your theory of money is flawed – there is nothing special about gold/silver vs. Fed Reserve note other than the latter is easily manufactured. That creates other problems, but it has no reference to this topic”

            Let’s see, China, Uncle Sam, Europe, Japan and the UK all get together and decide today;
            the dollar is worth ten cookies
            the pound is worth 26 cookies
            the yen is worth three cookies, etc
            all go home happy
            then the US, China, Japan & Eorope decide it’s cheaper to just print more money than produce things that are traded for the money that’s already printed….

            “And you are right, the are all mercantilists and the race to the bottom is probable regarding the devaluations of currency.”

            Hey! you admit I was right about something! But I don’t think you see my point, the closing of some markets and tariffs, this is part of that race to the bottom. If this continues, the US, Europe’s fiat spending, a great depression will be the result.

            “We are speeding down a highway and the brakes are out, but the driver refuses to take his foot off the gas because we are racing these other idiots in the same situation”.

            After the “Greatest Depression”, if they don’t start a war as a distraction, everyone gets back together with a tallysheet and decides who owes who how much and what has to be written off. I wonder if China’s game is aimed at after the depression, for one thing. For them, I think their main goal is to modernize as quickly as possible, no matter the cost.

            “So, instead of arguing by specious example – which is a fallacy – argue by principle.”
            Hey, you do things how you want, I’ll do the same…Don’t like my driving, stay off the sidewalk….

            • LOI

              My relationship with my grocery store does not exist.

              hahahah

              Well, of course it does. You transact with him.

              Economics is human action, and all human action is ultimately individual. All laws of economics exist across all scales – and are the same whether one to one or nation to nation. Like gravity, it exists between to small bodies as it does between two large ones – the consequences may vary but the laws are the same.

              You can easily see the failure of “balance of trade” arguments when you apply them individually – just like you can see the failure of “immigration laws” when you apply them individually.

              Do such an exercise exposes the ignorant rhetoric around these subjects and clears the irrelevant emotional fluff that gets in the way.

              Let’s see, China, Uncle Sam, Europe, Japan and the UK all get together and decide today;

              As I said, you theory of money is flawed.

              None of these countries determines the “worth” of the dollar.

              You do.

              Why do you think the Euro is going down, why do you think the US$ goes up and down?

              Do you believe big men in small rooms ponder these things in the deep night and dictate it at dawn?

              No.

              You do.
              And a billion others every second.

              the US, China, Japan & Eorope decide it’s cheaper to just print more money than produce things that are traded for the money that’s already printed….

              Then inflation goes up – but what does that have to do with the balance of trade?

              Methinks you think money is something else and not an economic good.

              LOI, money is an economic good and you trade with it, just like any other economic good.

              This is why I said it is irrelevant in the context you raise – because you can as easily substitute apples or cars or TV sets as the tradeable economic good, and your theory of trade better remain valid. Money is nothing different – it is an economic good and you trade with it.

              There are effects to increasing the money supply, but that is incidental and irrelevant in this context at this time

              Hey! you admit I was right about something!

              You’re not always wrong.
              Charlie holds that degree.

              But I don’t think you see my point, the closing of some markets and tariffs, this is part of that race to the bottom.

              Yes it is, and I said so.
              But it only harms those nations who are ignorant of the economics and close their markets and creates tariffs

              IT
              NEVER
              HURTS
              THOSE
              WHO
              HAVE
              OPEN
              MARKETS
              AND
              NO (LOWER)
              TARIFFS.

              Look in history:
              Why do you think Istanbul or Venice or Amsterdam or Alexandria were incredibly rich in their days?

              Everywhere else had massive tariffs and closed markets – these cities did not. Everyone went there to trade and those cities were the richest in their era.

              The argument for closed markets fails quickly by historical review, it fails utterly by review of economic principle. It exists solely by political writ.

              . I wonder if China’s game is aimed at after the depression, for one thing.

              No government does very well when the people are in economic depression, which is why all governments spend like drunks to avoid it, even if it guarantees a worse depression in the future

              China is no different. The elite of China are sitting very precariously and cannot afford an angry 2 billion people.

              But, they are packed full of Keynesian economists and are doing the same failed policies as everyone else.

              They are not aiming at it – but they believe their policies will avoid it. They are ignorant and do not understand it will guarantee it.

              To us, it appears they are dedicated to achieving the goal of a depression. They do not know how to avoid it.

              Prepare for big changes in China in the future.

              Hey, you do things how you want, I’ll do the same…Don’t like my driving, stay off the sidewalk….

              Your way, as you admit, is wrong.

              You are trying to understand/interpret/promote a policy.

              If you are otherwise merely trying to waste time typing, you’d be more successful doing typing tests.

              Your way will avoid understanding, misinterpret, and end up promoting nefarious and disastrous policies.

              I suggest driving lessons and stay off the sidewalks.

        • charlieopera says:

          @LOI I think you may be too vested in what you see as an absolute to consider others viewpoints unless they agree with yours…You might also want to give me some credit for sometimes have a worthwhile, or original thought.

          Good for you. There’s hope yet …

          @BF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=1TvXGdIfYxk&NR=1

    • charlieopera says:

      Isee Flag has tilted Charlie a little. Come on Charlie, use your smarts on him, not name calling. Maybe this will help. I think the trade imbalance is an issue & it’s getting worse. What say you Flagster?

      Oh, LOI, are you serious? The guy is a buffoon. To argue with him is akin to arguing with a brick wall (and I think you know that). I suggest he get outside and meet with some real to life people for the sake of giving his attempts to impressive himself on a keyboard a rest (for an hour or two a day–is that too much to ask).

      He’s a jerkoff (as we say on the street). A guy so full of himself, it’s comical. Where did he “tilt” me, LOI? I understand you’ve become one of his disciples … but seriously, dude, that’s your problem, brother.

      BF (whoever he may be–he’s afaid to let anyone know–a true man of principal and liberty, huh?) spends his friggin’ life on this blog. He argues with the same 10 people day in and day out. What does that tell you? Maybe you should get out a little more, too? It’s a thought, my brother … just a thought.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Your failure to see/reap the value of his lessons is your own loss.

        It is a threat to one’s own being to discover their belief system is flawed. (Or they ‘feel’ it’s a threat to their own being). So they cling to their errors tell death do they part. You are the “brick wall”, Charlie.

      • Charlie,

        Did you read the article I posted that give credit to your position? Dosen’t make you right or him wrong, just some information and another point of view… Could be you are both wrong.
        Sure Flag’s full of himself. He’s also right about a lot of things. Doesn’t mean he’s always right. But then, you are pretty full of yourself as well, for the rest of us, it’s like watching two brick walls argue. My suggestion to both of you, be a little more respectful, throw in some humor(makes the show better for us in the audience). And consider, you both are not giving fair consideration to the other.

        Can talk about my “getting out” more Monday…

        • charlieopera says:

          The flaw in your argument is this: BF sees the world as Black and White. I don’t. Nothing is absolute. I don’t propose socialism or communism as a panacea … I say we are destined in that direction because of capitalism (a kind of balancing out of the mess capitalism has created). You can disagree or not, but my position isn’t etched in stone. BF (or whatever his real name is)’s position comes from on high (in his mind) … everything he states is based on assumptions that have no place in the real world (i.e., theories that have yet to prove themselves).

          That was me being nice. This is me: The guy (if he is a guy) is a dick.

          • Charlie,

            The flaw in your argument is this: BF sees the world as Black and White. I don’t. Nothing is absolute.

            You replace a two-color view with a single color – gray, and believe you are seeing the world clearly.

            You are wrong – again.

            I do not see the world black and white. I have many different color shirts and socks.

            You believe 1+1 must have a variety of answers that are all “right” – but that is ignorance. It has one right answer and the rest are wrong.

            Everything to you is feeling – emotional – you have no objective measures, so a world which operates on natural law -which is perfectly objective- confuses the hell out of you.

            There is a time and a place where subjective viewpoints have merit. Your problem: you let your subjective measures bleed into times and places where they have no merit, or worse, are disastrous.

            Thus your flaw – you see nothing as right or wrong – hence, everything, including evil, is merely an illusion depending on your day.

            Today you will use, but tomorrow you will complain about it until it is useful for you again.

            There are moral black and whites, Charlie, even in a world where you have different colored socks.

            You have no discernment of right or wrong – merely “Charlie’s world” – a single color of gray.

            I don’t propose socialism or communism as a panacea … I say we are destined in that direction because of capitalism (a kind of balancing out of the mess capitalism has created).

            And I said socialism is a human disaster. It will always lead to mass death and destruction of humanity. It cannot avoid these disasters because of its fundamental core premises.

            Now, I also said and warned often that much of the world is traveling such a path.

            I have very often posted dire warnings of the rise of your ilk:
            – your ilk is far better prepared, organized and capable then the vast most of the people -even here on SUFA- are aware or ever considered.

            There is grave danger on the horizon and it is coming from “your side” – the Buck’s, the Mathius’, and the Charlies – the combinitation of the “soft” progressives like Mathius who brush away the Progressive movements horrific evil past, to the Bucks who are the intellectual apologists devoid of any rational argument who like lawyers fluff their positions with rhetoric and to you, the emotionally irrational who appeal to the envy of the masses.

            A dream team of evil.

            • charlieopera says:

              You replace a two-color view with a single color – gray, and believe you are seeing the world clearly.

              Actually, no, I don’t (but it must suit your argument to decide for me what I see). There are moral black and whites (murder is wrong) but even they can be mitigated into a gray area (self-defense, protection of another human being, etc.). So, once again, you ASSume and/or PREsume to know something that comes out of your ass.

              You are wrong – again.

              No, actually, you are—again.

              Everything to you is feeling – emotional – you have no objective measures, so a world which operates on natural law -which is perfectly objective- confuses the hell out of you.

              A substantial flaw in your thought process, BF, is to remove emotion. People have them; thus they always come into play. There are no “how to live” guidebooks (even yours) people live by. People do and act according to their feelings. The laws of the land (any land) are subject to interpretation. You may not like it that way, but it is reality (something you refuse to deal with). You make statements that are nothing more than theory (or your world, for all its rational thought) would exist. But it doesn’t … because it can’t (except for in your head).

              There is a time and a place where subjective viewpoints have merit. Your problem: you let your subjective measures bleed into times and places where they have no merit, or worse, are disastrous.

              A chink in your armor, BF? You’re admitting emotion has a role in real life? So, tell me, what are these times and places where they have no merit? How can you be so sure of them? If you open the pandora’s box of emotion to one thing, aren’t you doing so to all things? You historical examples are always the same and always black and white (i.e., 40,000,000 dead), yet you discount the violence (and dead) behind free market expansion.

              Thus your flaw – you see nothing as right or wrong – hence, everything, including evil, is merely an illusion depending on your day.

              Like everyone living in the real world, I see plenty that is right and/or wrong, but I’m not so arrogant as to assume my view of right and wrong is (or should be) everyone else’s view of right and wrong. That’s you, my friend.

              Today you will use, but tomorrow you will complain about it until it is useful for you again.

              That may well be (at times), but that only goes to prove all things need to be looked at separate from one another. I admire those who can change their minds. Those so sure of themselves are ALWAYS the ones to fear the most (and are usually proved wrong).

              You have no discernment of right or wrong – merely “Charlie’s world” – a single color of gray.

              See above … now, go out for a walk with your daughter and/or wife and try not to torture them.

              • Charlie

                There are moral black and whites (murder is wrong) but even they can be mitigated into a gray area (self-defense, protection of another human being, etc.).

                Why is murder wrong, Charlie?
                Is inflicting violence wrong?
                Is theft wrong?
                Is championing theft as a means to wealth wrong?

                That’s the problem with your philosophy, Charlie – you make statements that contradict yourself.

                You support theft when it benefits you, as an example.

                You make statements that are nothing more than theory (or your world, for all its rational thought) would exist.

                You do not understand what “theory” is.

                A theory is an explanation of cause and effect.

                You have no theories – none.
                You have baseless hypothesis that have long been shown faulty.

                Because you have no theories – that is, you cannot explain cause and effect – you automatically believe no one else can.

                yet you discount the violence (and dead) behind free market expansion.

                Your flaw, Charlie, is that you desperately require redefining one thing to be another thing so that your perverse world view somehow can be explained.

                Free market expansion occurs by voluntary trade.

                You cannot stand that, so you equate mercantilistic violence to be “Free market”

                Hence, you get the wrong answers every time.

              • Mathius says:

                BF: You are wrong – again.

                Charlie: No, actually, you are—again.

                I can’t even begin to tell you two how much I love this particular exchange.

                BF: You!
                C: No you!
                BF: No YOU!
                C: Well you’re a doo doo head!
                BF: Well you’re an irrational doo doo head!
                C: I’m telling USW!
                BF: Tattle tail!
                C: Am not!
                BF: Are too!
                C: Nuh uh!
                BF: Yuh huh!
                C: You’re a meanie!
                BF: No you are!
                C: You.
                BF: No you!
                C: No YOU!

            • I keep forgetting that I’m evil incarnate — thanks for the reminder BF! But I am glad you think of me as an intellectual (I’ll ignore the ‘apologist’).

              • Mathius says:

                Don’t let it go to your head.

              • Too late…

              • Aww, how come I didn’t make the “dream team of evil”? I never get picked for the “good” team…

              • Sorry, my oversight

              • That’s sad for you.

                You know what, if Romney (R-Money) can retroactively quit his company, I should be able to retroactively add you to the list.

                Here we go.. ::firing up the Way Back Machine::

                the Todd’s, Buck’s, the Mathius’, and the Charlies”

                Shoot.. I should have use the machine to correct his grammar, too. Oh well.

              • Too bad you can’t use your fancy machine to go back and change your grammar as well.

                (Hint: ‘should have USED the machine’)

            • Mathius says:

              the combinitation of the “soft” progressives like Mathius who brush away the Progressive movements horrific evil past,

              I brush away the progressive movement’s horrific past? Not I, sir. I am well aware of the evil which has been done in the name of progressivism. Further, I am well aware of the terrible consequences of some (many) well-intentioned progressive programs.

              But you, sir, you are the one who ignores the terrible past of any sort of anarchy. It is you who insists on a utopic vision of men living in harmony with only the free market to stabilize society. You are the one who brushes away anarchy’s horrific evil past.

  2. Government needs to go! 🙂

  3. @Anita, I’ll send you an email on the potatoes. If you choose to grow them, you WILL be a slave to your garden. Just like your a slave to your company and wages, except you get to eat your slavemaster in the end 😆

  4. People who bemoan “trade deficits” are not defenders of free trade.

    They are defenders of mercantilism.

    Economist Micheal Kinsely explains:

    There is no inconsistency or ambiguity in the economic case for free trade; but policy-oriented economists must deal with a world that does not understand or accept that case.

    Anyone who has tried to make sense of international trade negotiations eventually realizes that they can only be understood by realizing that they are a game scored according to mercantilist rules, in which an increase in exports – no matter how expensive to produce in terms of other opportunities foregone – is a victory, and an increase in imports – no matter how many resources it releases for other uses – is a defeat.

    The implicit mercantilist theory that underlies trade negotiations does not make sense on any level, indeed is inconsistent with simple adding-up constraints; but it nonetheless governs actual policy.”

    This is where Charlie and his gang (and others too) can’t grasp.

    Because you are no longer making “shirts” means you can make other things.

    A labor cannot build a computer AND make a shirt at the same time (as an arbitrary example)

    China making shirts CHEAPER allows that labor to go into making better and cheaper computers.

    Charlie points to employment/unemployment currently, and offers policies that he believes will correct it – that is, protecting shirt makers from the Chinese, and forcing Americans to pay more for shirts.

    Well, Charlie will certainly help the local shirt makers pad their wallets, but it will be a disaster on the computer industry, and a complete disaster for all Americans as they see their wealth erode.

    Eventually, the shirt makers collapse too. As the American economy grinds to a halt, people don’t buy shirts either.

    So like almost every solution Charlie posits, the long term consequences are disastrous.

    Remember Charlie is always willing to trade long term prosperity for the illusion of short term prosperity.

    He believes, irrationally in his heart, that when the consequences of the long term destruction begin to appear, he and his ilk will be able to discover a new solution to mitigate it.

    But we are living in that time now.

    The long term destruction of the Socialist policies are coming to bear, and Charlie’s ilk are as hopeless in their search for “an answer” as they were when they first proposed and then enforced these economic conditions.

    Mercantilism – the other side of the Socialist coin – is bearing its fruits as well. China’s economists are as stupid as the American ones – they would rather the Chinese people subsidize American buyers, then allow their own people to buy American goods.

    If Americans were smart (and many of them are), they’d be saying “give us more, please!”.

    If someone is willing to pay you to buy their goods, who here thinks that would be a bad deal?

    • “The Chinese government also extorted electric car technology from GM, including its state-of-the-art battery technology, as a condition for producing and selling electric cars in China.”

      “Trading” with a thief is apt to end in your loss….

      • How is agreeing to terms “extortion”?

        • It’s not…some people are not just willing, but eager to make a deal with the devil. An personal example, we don’t do business with NY or Chicago. Too much graft. But back on China, who may have stolen F-35 tech, do a search on how many times they have stolen US technology….staggering…

        • Because extortionists come any many forms and a government can become a partner in extortion when the stated desire is to destroy something else. The Unites States agreeing to something that is in detriment to its people………is no agreement.

          I will use our participation (our family enterprise) as an example but it will take me a little while to outline it and explain it and it will not be academia theory….relying on academia is worse than playing Russian roulette with only one empty chamber, however, I will explain in detail how cattle sales are actually manipulated to the detriment of free trade and how prices are determined not by supply and demand but by government intervention and trade imbalances that are not part of any agreement with individuals but agreements with countries that are designed to price protect and market protect. We are BANNED from direct cattle sales to China, to Europe, to Canada, to Mexico, and to Africa. I can also show you where we are BANNED, as independents, from direct oil sales to Canada, China, Mexico, etc. and where these “agreements” are not agreements at all but are designed to control supply and demand. Theory, even economic theory, is great for the classroom and it needs to stay there for it is NOT applicable in real life. Even in transportation, I can show where it is NOT available at any price because individuals are banned from participating in foreign sales on certain items. You can do it in widgets and costume jewelery but try it in the commodities market. We cannot sell one pound of beef overseas……anywhere. Period.

          Free trade does not exist. It may have once but it does not exist now….not on the stage of global economics. For free trade to exist…government needs to go away….completely and leave trade to the individuals. THAT is the only place that free trade can happen.

          it is government manipulation that drives cause and effect…..and cause and effect….AFFECTS our daily life in ALL aspects of living. We are told what we can produce on our own land, where we can sell it and where we can trade it. Farm subsidies are on the rise at this very moment and THAT also affects trade and supply. Our subsidy has been doubled in the last two years and we DID NOT APPLY FOR IT…..nor did we apply for it in the beginning nor do we want it but are prevented from giving it back…..and now we are prohibited by government decree to give it away to charity. For the first time in HISTORY, we are being audited as to charitable gifts over $50,000. and the audit is specifically driven at the farm subsidy. It is GIVEN to us not to grow something that we do not grow anyway. This is price and supply fixing. Take what is happening to us on an individual basis and apply it on an exponential basis with governments and you have global economics.

          So, when no free trade exists in reality, there are no agreements in place that do not border on extortion. I think that extortion is a great word to use in today’s trade agreements.

    • charlieopera says:

    • charlieopera says:

      Charlie points to employment/unemployment currently, and offers policies that he believes will correct it – that is, protecting shirt makers from the Chinese, and forcing Americans to pay more for shirts.

      Well, Charlie will certainly help the local shirt makers pad their wallets, but it will be a disaster on the computer industry, and a complete disaster for all Americans as they see their wealth erode.

      Eventually, the shirt makers collapse too. As the American economy grinds to a halt, people don’t buy shirts either.

      So like almost every solution Charlie posits, the long term consequences are disastrous.

      One has to wonder why the world doesn’t follow the phantom BF’s advice (since it’s so “informed” [sarcasm intended]).

      Could it be because it only exists here at SUFA (where he’s regarded as something way more than he is)?

      Or maybe he’s just out of his mind.

      Six of one, half a dozen of the other … but at least his ASSumptions and PREsumptions are consistent. Now, enough of it.

      • Charlie…..have you not figured out BF yet? He is a theorist and he is an anarchist. Actually, (***ducking here***)….you and BF are about the same. Both of you have your theories and both of you are anarchists in your own rights. BF is correct in his application of theoretical economic policy rooted in Free Trade….but the problem is, we do not have free trade….that does not mean his theory is flawed….it is, at present, not practical. In basic premise, you want controls…he wants no controls. His entire theory is rooted in the rights of man, to coin a phrase. He wants Natural Law to rule and you do not. Pretty simple really. He sees any form of control, beyond the individuals concerned, as violence, upon the innocent and you do not. Both of you are deeply rooted in theory, as I see it.

        BF and I have our differences. He thinks that I am a blithering idiot at times and vice versa, but we can discuss our differences and support out theories and while neither of us may still not agree, it is out of respect for those theories and nothing personal. (Although, I think he secretly likes the Texas independence).

        So….my EYE talian friend……march on. You are fun to read and spar with.

        • BF is correct in his application of theoretical economic policy rooted in Free Trade….but the problem is, we do not have free trade….that does not mean his theory is flawed….it is, at present, not practical.

          I

          You make the same error as Charlie.

          A theory is an explanation of a cause/effect. So claiming that I hold a theory does not explain reality is bizarre. That is exactly what I am doing – explaining reality.

          Economic “null hypothesis” starts with Free Trade – that is, men in voluntary trade with other men. From that point, I describe the consequences of violence that is introduced into that system by applying human responses to violence.

          Thus, when I say mercantilistic policies impoverish the People, you can review the historical fact and say “Yep, it does”.

          Thus, when I say “If a nation expands its mercantilistic policies, it will increase the impoverishment the People” you can be pretty assured that it will.

        • Further, I am not condoning or complaining about any particular policy – economics is does not generate policy. It explains the consequences of a policy.

          If your goal is to increase prosperity, and you select a policy of mercantilism, I will explain why you are stupid.

          If your goal is to impoverish the people, and you select a policy of mercantilism, I will explain why it will work.

        • charlieopera says:

          Captain cannoli thinks being compared to BF is the greatest of insults … captain cannoli doesn’t profess to have the world’s answers … just suggestions. Captain cannoli prefers living life to handing down edicts.

          Captain cannoli is one fat MFer because living life involves eating CANNOLI …

          Colonel, I don’t agree with just about everything BF says but not because I disagree with the theory … theories are theories, nothing more or less. It is the application of theory to life (the empirical) that counts in my book … and nothing of what BF claims the world should follow do I see being applied anywhere … mostly because they can’t be applied anywhere (his assumptions don’t hold water outside of his noggin) …

          Now, I need me some more cannoli …

      • Charlie,

        One has to wonder why the world doesn’t follow the phantom BF’s advice

        Because the goal of certain people does not include broad prosperity, but ego-centrism – just like you.

        • charlieopera says:

          So why not take these lectures outside of a site where 10-15 people pay attention (and another few think you’re nuts)? Is your goal to save the world or impress yourself?

  5. @ BF…before you and I discuss relevant economic theory, can you and I agree that free trade is a black and white issue….free trade means that any individual can engage in trade with any partner it wishes free of subsidies, price controls, and supply caveats? And that ANY deviation from this definition means that there is no free trade but controlled trade?

    • D13,
      I have little issue with your definition, but just in reserve, I’ll present mine:

      “Free Trade – voluntary trade, free from coercion or violence.

      • Ok…I equate voluntary to be synonymous with free, so that works with me Just so I am straight on this……coercion means to you, any type of government interference ( state mandated tariffs, for example)? Violence escapes me but I am sure you can give me an example of what you mean by violence as in trade, I see those issues as pretty synonymous as well, unless you mean the actual physical stopping of transportation or some such.

        • Coercion is violent force upon non-violent men. That is, you are using violence to force men to act in a manner that they would not act voluntarily.

          So if some violent force is applied to men to force them to do something they would not do, then it is not voluntary, nor is it free – and if it is in reference to trade, it is not free trade.

          • Got it.

          • I think your definition of coercion is far too narrow.

            Is it violence for an employer to threaten termination if a female employee doesn’t engage in sexual acts with him? No, but it certainly is coercion. Just as an example off the top of my head.

            I get that your definition of “violent force” includes the implied “or threat thereof,” but there are many many other ways to coerce which do not include violence.

            • Mathius

              I think your definition of coercion is far too narrow. Is it violence for an employer to threaten termination if a female employee doesn’t engage in sexual acts with him? No, but it certainly is coercion. Just as an example off the top of my head. I get that your definition of “violent force” includes the implied “or threat thereof,” but there are many many other ways to coerce which do not include violence.

              It is voluntary or it is not.

              The employer seeking sexual favors and applying job loss example:

              An employer can rightfully terminate an employee for whatever reason within the terms of the agreement. Note “whatever reason”.

              • But that doesn’t make it not COERCIVE.

                In Flag-land, I get that this would be viable. Ie, firing the unwilling employee. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s coercive. Per our friends at dictionary.com

                co·er·cion   [koh-ur-shuhn] noun
                1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

                Certainly, I would agree that use (or threat) of force constitutes, but it’s that second one that you’re ignoring. Intimidation. Threat of unemployment or or demotion or of social leverage or of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It’s intimidation.

                So, for example, if you and I are in your free market, and I am extremely wealthy and influential and powerful and you are barely getting by, I have a lot of leverage against you. If I come to you and demand you give me an unreasonable price for your latest widget. You’ll say no. (free market, huzzah!). But then I tell you that if you refuse, I will prohibit all my trading partners from dealing with you. Now your choice is a loss on this widget or total financial ruin. You’ll agree to sell. Well, did I do anything “wrong” per say? I might argue that it was a jackass move (and you’d probably agree). And I get that it would be fair game (even if frowned upon) in pirate-land. But certainly, I think you’d concede that it’s coercive as it uses intimidation (even if not by violence) in order to cause you to agree to a transaction which you would otherwise not consent to.

              • Mathius

                No, it is a right.

                You may not like how some men exercise their rights or the reasons they exercise them in one manner or another.

                And you feel compelled to correct their exercise of their rights by destroying those rights.

                That act of destructive correct, however, eliminates your rights as well.

                Give grave thought to that consequence.

                “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

              • charlieopera says:

                Or the use of sanctions between countries … it’s not violent but it sure is coercive … but in BF’s thick noggin, the powerful get to duke on whomever they want …

                It’s a wonderful Ayn Rand-like philosophy for the wealthy to support … they abhor violence and sure don’t seem to mind the fact their wealth was born of it (even the actual violence of taking lands from those before them).

                Essentially, what BF’s theory is … is bullshit.

              • Charlie,

                That’s one of your many problems – you have no idea what is violence and where it is applied because unless you are on the receiving end, you are blind to it.

                Sanctions ARE an act of violence – you interfere with the trade between two parties of which you are neither, and stop the trade by using violence on one or both of them.

              • Mathius says:

                No, it is a right.

                In Flag-Land, I get that this is so. But that’s not in dispute.

                Just because you have a RIGHT to do something doesn’t make it non coercive. Coercion, as defined by the dictionary (and common sense) the use of force OR intimidation. Intimidation does not only mean fear of force, it can mean many other things such as, for example, loss of livelihood.

                You may not like how some men exercise their rights or the reasons they exercise them in one manner or another.

                And you feel compelled to correct their exercise of their rights by destroying those rights.

                I am not arguing about this. You are changing the subject. What I am arguing is – again – that your definition of coercion is too narrow. Further, I am arguing that even within your framework, it is possible to be within your rights, but still act in a coercive manner while, while perhaps not strictly violative of the rights of others, is detrimental to their ability to act freely.

                That act of destructive correct, however, eliminates your rights as well.

                I don’t know that I would necessarily disagree with this point. Insofar as I impose on others, I must allow that others may impose on me in the same manner.

                Give grave thought to that consequence.

                I already have, but it’s off topic. The topic, again, is “Black Flag’s definition of coercion is too narrow” and “It is still possible to be coercive while within your rights in the Black Flag moral framework.”

                “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

                I think Thomas Jefferson had a point.. but then again I don’t think he was contemplating any views as extreme as yours when he said that.

                But regardless. That is still off topic.

              • Mathius,

                No, it is a right. In Flag-Land, I get that this is so. But that’s not in dispute. Just because you have a RIGHT to do something doesn’t make it non coercive. Coercion, as defined by the dictionary (and common sense) the use of force OR intimidation. Intimidation does not only mean fear of force, it can mean many other things such as, for example, loss of livelihood.

                Or fear of socks and bare feet.

                So what? I am not the master of your fear and you can make up whatever little ditty you wish to complain about my right, but that does not change my right.

                Me doing my rights can never be detrimental to your freedom, unless you are trying to destroy my freedom first.

                It may interfere in doing what you want, but that is irrelevant to my right or my freedom or your freedom. You are not free to destroy my freedom.

              • Mathius says:

                Jesus.. it’s like arguing with a oak tree..

                Read.. the.. words.. I’m… typing: That’s not the point. The point is that you can still be coercive even while being within your rights.

                Coercive does not mean you violate the rights of others. It means you compel them to do something they don’t want to do, which you want them to (“especially without regard for individual desire or volition”). It means dominating or controlling another person.

                That doesn’t mean it’s (necessarily) morally wrong or that it violates anyone’s rights. It just means it’s COERCION. And, because you’ve chosen to unilaterally narrow the definition to only include violence and the threat thereof, you then conclude you ‘doing your rights can never be detrimental to my freedom.’ That’s not the POINT.

                The POINT, Flag, is that your definition of coercion is WRONG and that coercion can/would still exist within your framework.

                An employer demanding an employee have sex with him at peril of her job is WRONG. It is COERCIVE. Now you might look at that and say, he’s free to fire her for ‘any’ reason and she’s free to refuse and/or quit. And that may be, but it’s beside the point. Please, please try to stay on point.

              • Mathius,

                You’re not listening.

                Your complaining that nearly anything that prevents you from doing whatever on Earth is your desire is NOT an example of coercive.

                You want something from me.
                I insists something from you in return.

                This is by no means coercive – just because the something you “want”, you “really really want bad” – so bad, you’re willing to do a lot of extraordinary things to get.

              • Flag,

                It’s a sliding scale.

                Somewhere it ships from being a friendly request to pressuring to demanding and then to coercing.

                I’m not saying where the line necessarily is drawn, and it’s irrelevant since it’s just a question of semantics, not law, but the point stands.

                It’s about DOMINATING or CONTROLLING another person through fear or intimidation. Are you saying that THIS cannot happen in flag world? And that, if the boss demands sex upon threat of termination that the woman hasn’t been coerced into it?

                Say that, then, and I’ll give up. Say: “A boss who extorts sex from an otherwise unwilling woman following a threat to fire her has not engaged in coercion.”

                Even if he has such a right, that’s not just something he wants ‘really badly’ and is willing to ‘do a lot of extraordinary things to do’ – it may well be those things, but that’s irrelevant. The point of coercion is the application of pressure and intimidation and threats in order to make someone do something they don’t want to do.

              • Mathius

                Flag, It’s a sliding scale. Somewhere it ships from being a friendly request to pressuring to demanding and then to coercing. I’m not saying where the line necessarily is drawn, and it’s irrelevant since it’s just a question of semantics, not law, but the point stands.

                Bizarrely, it may for you.

                But there is no “controlling” – no gun is to anyone’s head.

                You merely are pointing to yourself and saying “What I really, really, really, really want is so important, that you demands in trade are equally as high … and I don’t like that!”

                “A boss who extorts sex from an otherwise unwilling woman following a threat to fire her has not engaged in coercion.” – there, said it.

                She wants something so bad, she is willing to trade sex.

                The right answer – she should quit.

                Mathius, many people make a fundamental error in their lives – they assign so much importance to things that are utterly trivial – like “this job” as in your example.

                The error in your scenario is not what is demand in exchange, but her assignment of extreme important to “nothing really important”.

              • PS:
                The boss who insists on such a demand will also get his natural rewards of that action – his customers will erode away too as no one likes extreme deals.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I said that if you said that, I’d give up.

                I give up.

                But I am going to take that over to the new thread and throw it out to the group to opine on.

                Good day, Mr. Flag.

  6. Small-business owners in particular (28%) said that a lower corporate tax rate of between 15% and 20% would be necessary to make the U.S. competitive with foreign income tax rates. The survey respondents named Texas, Florida and Nevada among the most competitive states to operate in thanks to their tax policies, whereas California, New York and New Jersey were ranked least competitive.

    Read more: http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/finance-accounting/2012/07/12/how-big-role-will-taxes-play-in-2012-elections/?intcmp=featuredmedia#ixzz20k4m2qa9

    Perhaps a lesson here?

    • Colonel,
      What’s the lesson? That we should let 28% decide things? How about the other 72%?

      Did you read the paragraph above the one you quoted:

      both large and small-business CFOs rank certainty in the tax code as more important than a reduction in corporate tax rates. When given the opportunity to eliminate or significantly alter one aspect of the tax code, most of the 300 CFOs surveyed said they would increase certainty in the code overall (37%).

      Do these 37% count for anything?

      • So basically, raise taxes, don’t raise taxes, lower taxes — doesn’t really matter so long as we make a decision and actually keep with it…that’s pretty much what I’ve heard from the small business owners I work with.

        • Yes, therein lies the lesson……pick somewhere to go and then do it. We do not invest much anymore because of the uncertainty of the taxes. We certainly do not look towards capital gains much anymore.The reason that we do not do this is because there is nothing to hang our hat on. We do not know what the percentage is going to be. Just pick it….if we like it… we invest. If we do not like it, we work our money elsewhere that is to our advantage. Who suffers? We will not…only the people and entities that need investments. The people hanging onto assets that will not be able to get rid of them. History has shown….increase capital gains…..investments drop like a home sick brick.

          • Actually I don’t believe history has shown that at all. If cap gains goes from 15 to 20 I don’t anticipate there being much of a change in investments at all; not to mention, if it is done is some fashion as to create certainty (though to be fair, I doubt this is even possible), investments could actually increase.

      • Yes,Todd, I read it……actually the posting was meant for Buck…..since he is in New York and Joisey since we like to poke fun at each other,….. All I hear about on the news and from the progressive left is competing against the global markets. Businessmen and women cannot make long term decisions with the current volatility of the tax code. Raise/lower/keep them…..make a damned decision and then live with the consequences. We have some bucks to invest but will not do it until we know the outcome. We will weigh the tax code and its impact. It may be better to just sit on our money and draw 1.5% right now than to invest it in capital markets and suffer a higher capital gains tax. We may decide to invest it overseas where the taxes are much smaller and better. We are not worried about an overseas tax that has been threatened by Obama..he will not be able to do that,Nancy Pelosi and her ilk have millions in offshore and overseas accounts…..even if the Republicans voted overwhelmingly to tax overseas money.it will not pass Democratic muster.

        The lesson…..make a decision.No matter where it goes. I did not imply at all that any percentage rule…..the article implies…..make a decision so we can make ours.

        I will always fall on the side of less taxes until I see a balanced budget. Without a balanced budget, I will always fall on the side of less taxes. But, right now, I would LOVE to see a decision made, Any decision.

        • So would you support some level of higher taxes if it meant a balanced budget?

          You know us lawyers, we just love our hypotheticals!

            • LOI……it would not do that, though. My point is that if you have the taxes on a fair and equitable basis….fair and equitable=the same for all. You would see an immediate and substantial change in Washington, I am willing to bet. Right now, the get something for nothing crowd rules……hit them in the pocket book and hit the Washington insiders in the pocket book with the same hammer…….things will change, in my opinion.

          • I have told you before, counselor……I would support higher taxes IF and only IF it were fair across the board. And that means, get rid of progressive tax rates. You could never offer an argument that progressive is fair….not in my book, because you equate fairness to impact. I do not equate it that way at all. Want the millionaire pay 39%? Cool by me as long as everyone pays 39%. So, yes, balance the budget on the backs of all equally and I will support that……….and, for you counselor, my caveat…….get rid of the do nothing bunch in Washington…..on BOTH sides.

            As to your capital gains…no sir, we would not stop investing if it went from 15 to 25 %. We would stop if it increases past that and I beg to differ with you about the capital gains tax on small business. I will get my numbers for you to show where the capital investments dropped seriously when cap gains was higher……and the increase in overseas investment sky rocketed. We stopped completely but we do not play in the big boy circus.

            • I await your results — but caveat: yes, there will inevitably be a point where you raise cap gains taxes high enough (anything higher than ordinary income to be sure) where investments will fall off a cliff. But I’m sorry, I just dont’ see 15 to 20 being anywhere near that mark.

              And on progressive taxation, of course progressive taxation is fair! But we’ve been through this ad nauseum, so let’s stick with the cap gains issue for now…

              • Cap gains it is, my intrepid friend….and I will agree with you that 20% is not a deal killer. However, if it was only cap gains that is being raised….ok.But the overall impact combined with cap gains….well, now…………

              • Buck,

                Isn’t the goal to have enough revenue to meet spending needs? And hasn’t it been shown reducing taxes increases revenue? So what do you want, make the rich pay more because the masses demand “fairness”, or higher revenue that also rewards the rich? And why is the rich being rewarded part of the equation?

              • And hasn’t it been shown reducing taxes increases revenue?

                Um.. no?

              • Mathius accidentally substituted a (?) for a (!).

                The correct reading of his answer to the question ‘hasn’t it been shown reducing taxes increases revenue?’ is: NO!

              • Mathius says:

                Some support: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue

                I’m not going to bother listing 100k sources. I’m sure you could do it for yourself if you were so inclined.

                But, in all fairness, as the link points out, under certain circumstances a decrease in tax rates can lead to an increase in revenue. But that point is the point at which people don’t have the incentive to work hard / earn money because the government taxes so much of it away that it’s not worthwhile. I think you’d be hard-pressed to make that argument. People are still working, especially at the upper echelons where tax rates are the highest.

                Though, of course, I don’t enjoy paying 28-ish percent of my gross income to the federal government, it hasn’t in the least caused me to consider quitting and going welfare or taking an easier / lower paying job. If anything, it’s encouraged me to work harder to earn more. So, at least in my case, taxes aren’t an incentive to not work, therefore a decrease would not (again, in my case) increase yields. In fact, to the contrary, raising rates (on me, at least) would actually have an accelerated rate of increased revenue generation due to the extra effort I would wind up exerting.

                There’s a pretty graph of the Laffer Curve in the link. You seem to be suggesting that we’re at point T2, whereas all evidence seems to point to us being at point T1. The article also makes a great point in the final paragraph which, if nothing else, is worth the look.

              • Welcome to California: America without Republicans
                July 13, 2012
                Conn Carroll
                Senior Editorial Writer
                The Washington Examiner

                “I believe that if we’re successful in this election,” President Obama told campaign donors in Minnesota last month, “that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.”

                Apparently Obama believes that if he wins this November, Republicans on Capitol Hill will all begin to act like Chief Justice John Roberts by betraying their conservative beliefs and signing on to Obama’s unprecedented expansion of the federal welfare state. But what would America look like if the Republican “fever” did break?

                We already know. It would look a lot like the state of California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994. Democrats have also enjoyed complete control of the state legislature since 1997. And they have governed exactly the way you’d expect Democrats to govern.

                Spending has more than doubled, from $45.4 billion in 1996 to more than $92.5 billion today. Income, sales and car taxes have all been hiked. As a result, California has the most progressive income tax system in the nation, with seven income tax brackets, and the second-highest top marginal rate.

                Even with all those tax hikes, California’s 2012 budget is still $15.7 billion in the red. So what does Gov. Jerry Brown want to do? Raise taxes again, of course. He has proposed a ballot initiative that would: 1) raise sales taxes on everyone and 2) raise incomes taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year (like Obama has proposed to do nationally). But even this $8.5 billion tax hike would still leave the state $7.5 billion short. Where will California get that money? Who knows?

                And that is not the only spending binge California Democrats haven’t paid for. Just this month, the state legislature approved a $2.6 billion bond sale in order to fund construction on a scaled-back $68.4 billion high-speed rail project that will supposedly connect San Francisco and Los Angeles.

                If California begins construction on the train before this December 31 (a big if), Obama has agreed to give the state $3.5 billion in federal money to help. But that still leaves a $62.3 billion hole. Where does California plan to get that money? Who knows?

                With all of this unfunded government spending, Keynesian-Democratic thinking would predict that California’s economy should be booming.

                It isn’t.

                At 10.8 percent, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country. There are fewer private-sector jobs in the state today, 11.9 million, then there were in 2000, 12.2 million.

                And thanks to liberal welfare requirements, a third of all the nation’s welfare recipients live in California despite the state only containing one-eighth of the national population.

                Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today.

                Long before it became the nation’s 31st state in 1850, California had been a target destination for Americans looking for a better life. Not anymore.

                According to the last census, for the first time ever, the number of Californians born in other states actually decreased, falling from 7.6 million in 2000 to 6.6 million in 2010. And where did all those Californians flee? Many of them ended up in Texas, where the number of residents born in other states grew by almost 1 million.

                The California dream is dead. Democrats killed it. Middle-class families can’t escape the state fast enough. Conservatives must fight Obama and his agenda at every turn so that Californians still have other states to flee to.

                http://washingtonexaminer.com/welcome-to-california-america-without-republicans/article/2502102

      • This loser has moved to a new low. We might expect idiot comments like this from, oh say, people named Charlie that post on blogs, but from the president?

        • Kathy, did you even bother reading the text of his actual remarks?

          • The official transcript relates:

            There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. [Emphasis added]

            He continued:

            If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. [Emphasis added]

            • YAY for context!

              • Context?

                You agree with this? You are buying into this envy crap? This belittling of those that are more successful? That they are undeserving of what they have achieved? Only because of the amount in their bank account? That success is only achieved if the government is involved and therefore, the government should be allowed to take away (even more) from that successful person?

                Simply pathetic.

              • What ‘envy crap’? No one is saying that someone who establishes and builds up a successful small business did not work hard or is undeserving of that success. But it is an undeniable fact that their success was also borne out of the efforts of those that came before them.

                This is an expression of one of the foundations of progressive taxation.

        • Kathy,

          5 minutes in the penalty box.

          SUFA policy requires civility.

          However, since it’s been more than 5 minutes since you posted this, you’ll be sentenced to time served and released on your own recognizance.

          • Are you kidding? I was beyond civil – kind, in fact, to how I really feel!

            • Being nice relative to ‘how you feel’ is not the same thing as being nice. I don’t want to have to police you, but so help me, I will send you to your room without any supper!

              Now hug and make up, you two.

  7. Good Morning All 🙂

    I’m guessing that the Flag Stella Show is coming to an end, so, looking at another subject, has anyone noticed that since Rahm Emanuel took over as Mayor of Chicago, crime rates have really become a national issue? Could this be the prelude to Marshal Law in our most dangerous cities? How can this crime problem be stopped?

    • Abortion, retroactive.

      Now where did I leave the damn keys to that Way Back Machine…?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Who needs a Way Back Machine? Just make abortion legal up until 26 years after birth (since you can keep kids on your insurance policy up to that age under the new law). Instead of “partial-birth abortion” we can just call it “well after birth abortion”. The result is the same, just delayed up to (potentially) 26 years (at most).

        • Mathius says:

          I like it! 107th term abortions.

          That’s useful since some kid and his talking dog seem to have stolen my machine.

  8. HILARY ROSEN, DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST AND CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: And–

    GREGORY: …that is an important point. What– what– is he a man with a plan and what is the plan?

    ROSEN: Well, and that’s the problem. Right now the plan that we’ve seen from Mitt Romney is just mostly significant tax cuts for the wealthy. President Obama actually has put forth multiple plans that the Republican Congress has blocked. So, the only thing we have now is a choice. This conversation may not be what everybody wants, but we do have a choice between these two candidates.

    Moments later, Norquist corrected this nonsense:

    GROVER NORQUIST: But just one fact check. Hilary said the President has these economic plans that the Republican Congress has rejected. The House of Representatives for two years has been run by Republicans. The Democrats run the Senate. It was the Democrats in the Senate who voted unanimously against Obama’s own budget. So the idea that somehow he has these great ideas the Republicans are stopping, his budget is so lousy, the Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate voted it down. The president said “Please, Republican House and Senate, pass my tax bill.” It was Reid who…

    ROSEN: Well…

    NORQUIST: …stopped the vote from taking place.

    BEN JEALOUS, NAACP PRESIDENT: But that mean– that mean…

    ROSEN: That– that– that’s not…

    NORQUIST: Well, the Democrats are rejecting…

    ROSEN: …that’s not exactly true.

    MR. NORQUIST: His entire budget has been voted down by darned near every Democrat. Quit pretending the Republicans are upset by that. The Democrats didn’t want to touch it.

    Indeed. But the best was yet to come:
    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    GREGORY: There is a sense, Bob, as I talk to people that it is true that– that the trivial is becoming so big that we’re losing sight of some sort of balanced approach on taxes and spending, immigration reform, infrastructure for the country. Big things. That it takes to get the country moving again. Are we going to get back to it?

    BOB WOODWARD, WASHINGTON POST: Exactly. And listen to this partisan…

    GREGORY: Yeah.

    WOODWARD: …squabbling. I mean, it– it’s sincere but it’s all about look what they didn’t do. Oh, look what the Democrats didn’t do. Look what the Republicans didn’t and it’s true, where is the plan, the one, two, three in a credible way from one side or the other. And– and I think the…

    NORQUIST: But it– it’s there. The Republicans in the House have passed 24 jobs creating bills and a budget. The Democrats in the Senate have not passed those bills and they haven’t done a budget. They’re not coequally–

    GREGORY: Right.

    NORQUIST: …wrong on this. One group is actually governing and Reid is not having the votes.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/15/grover-norquist-schools-bob-woodward-and-hilary-rosen-which-party-isn#ixzz20mm41AI2

  9. @ Buck…….let us first agree on the definition of capital gains. There are two types of capital gains…long term and short term for tax purposes. Agree?

    And capital gains is NOT ordinary income. Agree?

    And Capital gain = the difference of the asset in value at time of purchase and at time of sale. Anything positive is a gain…..anything less is a loss. Agreed?

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • See above. Buck is under the spell.

      • Remember Kathy: I’m evil incarnate!

          • To be fair, Obama immediately recognized his mistake and self-corrected. I don’t remember Dubya being capable of such thought. It’s sad what constitutes ‘news’ these days…

            • Mathius says:

              The paralegals will be — the paralegals? (Laughter.) You don’t need lawyers. (Laughter.) The paramedics will be coming by, so just give folks a little bit of room, they’ll be fine.

              That’s a story? He caught it immediately, and corrected. Plus he (unlike Bush and Biden) doesn’t really have a history of it. And it’s just it’s kindof funny to boot.

              Contrasted.. “Is the children learning” or “They misunderestimated me.” or “childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” 🙂

              The truth is that ANYONE who is as carefully observed and recorded as a major Presidential candidate and who makes as many speeches and talks as much is going to misspeak. Obama does make mistakes (he is human), but it seems no more than is reasonable. That’s why it’s not news when he does this unless you’re deliberately trying to draw a false equivalency. Bush/Biden could be tried in the Hague for their crimes against the English language.

              ——

              Disclaimer, while I do appreciate proper use of language, good grammar, good syntax, and a coherent sentence structure, it isn’t strictly speaking necessary to the job of the President. It’s a fun distraction and a way to have a cheap laugh, but it really doesn’t mean anything on way or another. Especially (as with Bush) when they’re off the cuff comments, unlike Biden who somehow manages it in many of his prepared speeches. I hear old Joe spends so much time with his foot in his mouth that he’s being treated at Bethesda Medical for a severe case of athlete’s tongue.

              ——

              And, while we’re wandering aimlessly around on topics: Let’s all remember this chestnut next time we accuse Obama of having a big ego: Bush: “I trust God speaks through me.”

              —–

              Adding, maybe they need the paralegals to make sure that no one sues over it. I imagine the Obama campaign doesn’t want any class action lawsuits right before the election… Just saying… I hear Ambulance Chasing 101 is a required course in Law School..

        • Are not all lawyers? I thought that “evil incarnate” was in lawyering 101?

  11. It is now officially work to read and post on SUFA-where’s my welfare check.

    Obama Admin: Journaling, Motivational Reading Count As Work for Welfare

    by Ben Shapiro 15 Jul 2012 82 post a comment
    In 1996, Republicans forced through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, also known as welfare reform. It incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency. But states quickly acted to poke holes in that legislation, calling the following activities “work” for purposes of the statute: bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands.

    This was idiotic. So in 2005, Congress closed the loophole, over the objections of then-Senator Obama.

    Now, Obama has walked back the 2005 legislation, using his Department of Health and Human Services to unilaterally waive those work requirements. “This Administration is unbelievable,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). “Green-lighting new regulations to change bipartisan welfare reform without consultation from Congress is an outright abuse of the federal government’s system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers.”

    A high-ranking Republican staffer commented, “Only someone with a religious faith in government would change the rules such that ‘journaling’ now qualifies you for welfare assistance.”

    But this is Obama’s new definition of work: anything that allows you to receive government assistance. After all, welfare, unemployment benefits, and all other payouts forward the economy, according to our magnificent president.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/15/Obama-admin-gutting-welfare-reform-journaling

  12. Mathius says:

    Black Flag: “Sorry, my oversight”

    An admission of error!

    Queue the ticker tape parade!

  13. @ Buck: This is going to be long and as simple as I can make it.

    Capital Gains tax…the good, the bad, the ugly.

    A capital gain is the difference between the price received from selling an asset and the price paid for it. An asset can be a home, a farm, a ranch, a family business, or a work of art. Pretty simple definition. In addition, the capital gains tax is different from almost all other forms of federal taxation in that it is relatively easy to avoid. Because people pay the tax only when they sell an asset, they can legally avoid payment by holding on to their assets—a phenomenon known as the “lock-in effect.” (This is what happens when cap gains increases ). I know that it happens with me. Now, one of the problems with cap gain’s, is the treatment of such gains under the tax code. The tax treatment of capital gains has rather unique features. One is that capital gains are not indexed for inflation: in that the seller pays tax not only on the real gain in purchasing power, but also on the imagined gain attributable to inflation. This is known as the inflation penalty and is one reason that, historically, capital gains have been taxed at lower rates than ordinary income.

    Another strange feature of the tax is that individuals are permitted to deduct only a portion of the capital losses they incur, whereas they must pay taxes on all of the gains. When taxpayers undertake risky investments, the government taxes fully any gain they realize if the investment has a positive return. But the government allows only partial tax deduction (of up to three thousand dollars per year) if the venture results in a loss. This, alone, introduces a bias in the tax code against risk-taking. One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax is that it is economically inefficient in that it is a form of double taxation on capital formation. A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation. This is an assumption by most all but the hard left economist.
    Remember that the term “locked in capital” was used earlier. The historical evidence positively shows that when the capital gains tax is reduced, locked-in capital is liberated and the revenues from the tax rise. For example, after the 1981 capital gains tax was cut from 28 to 20 percent, federal capital gains tax revenues leaped from $29.4 billion in 1981 to $36.6 billion by 1983—a 24 percent increase. After the capital gains tax was cut in 1997, the receipts from capital gains taxes rose from $66.9 billion in 1996 to $114.7 billion by 1999, an increase of more than 71 percent. Conversely, total asset sales of taxable capital gains fell from $575 billion in 1986, the year before the capital gains rate was raised (from 20 back to 28 percent), to $246 billion in 1989. Investors were unwilling to sell stock and other taxable assets at the new higher tax rate. Reducing the capital gains tax rate appears also to lead to higher stock prices. The stock market boomed in the 1980s after the 1981 capital gains tax cut; it boomed to new heights in the late 1990s after the Clinton capital gains rate cut, and then again in 2003 after George W. Bush signed his capital gains tax cut into law.

    It may seem a paradox that a lower capital gains tax typically leads to more tax revenues collected from the tax. But, really, there is no mystery here. As mentioned, the capital gains tax is an easily avoided tax. When the tax rate is high, investors simply delay selling their assets—stocks, properties, businesses, and so on. When the capital gains tax is cut, asset holders are more likely to sell. Moreover, because a lower capital gains tax substantially lowers the cost of capital, it encourages risk-taking and causes the economy to grow faster, thus raising all government receipts in the long term.
    Past reductions in the capital gains tax rates (in 1978, 1981, and 1997) stimulated the financing and start-up of new businesses, while new business activity stalled after increases in capital gains taxes (1969 and 1986). New commitments to venture capital firms in 2004 increased from $220 million in 1977, when the top marginal tax rate on capital gains was 49 percent, to $9.7 billion by 1983, when the rate had been dropped to 20 percent and the U.S. economy had started pulling out of the recession. That was a 4,300 percent increase in capital raised for new firms. Venture capital funds are the economic lifeblood of high-technology companies in industries that are critical to U.S. international competitiveness such as computer software, biotechnology, computer engineering, electronics, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and so forth. The high capital gains tax rate had a direct negative relationship to the drying up of funding sources for those firms following the 1986 tax hike. Significantly, the massive technology boom of the late 1990s came immediately after the 1997 capital gains tax cut, unleashing another period of venture activity. This is undisputed.

    Finally, it should be noted that cuts in capital gains taxes particularly benefit the elderly. The elderly are two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five. The elderly are also likely to derive a larger share of their income from capital gains than are younger workers. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis examining IRS data from 1986 to 2006 found that the average elderly tax filer had an income of $31,865, 23 percent of which was capital gains. The average non elderly filer had an income of $26,199, 9 percent of which was from capital gains. So, the elderly who made long term investments, with no indexing for inflation…..get hammered.

    On balance, the evidence supports the economic case for a low rate of tax on capital gains. Recent actual experience suggests that a low rate of tax on capital gains increases capital investment and new business formation. Tax revenues have surged when the capital gains rate has been cut as trillions of dollars of locked-in capital are released to be put to more productive uses.

    Source: US Department of Treasury, IRS regulations, CBO capital gains comparisons (2010).

    • 1) True, it is extremely easy to avoid paying capital gains as mentioned — just keep holding on to that asset. But there are consequences to such an action; as you well know, your taxable estate includes the value of all assets owned at date of death, so you could be opening yourself to increased state/federal estate taxes.

      2) I believe the discussion on the deduction for capital losses mischaracterizes the issue — the amount of capital losses you can use to offset your ORDINARY INCOME is capped at $3K per year (though you can carry forward additional losses to offset ordinary income in years going forward as well) and this is only after you utilize your capital losses to offset your capital gains.

      3) I reject the notion that cap gains is a double tax. You are being taxed on the gain received from the sale of a given asset. Would you also claim that being taxed on interest received on a bank account is a double tax?

      • 1) This is true to the extent that you have state inheritance taxes…and to the extent that the codicils/wills/trusts, etc that are established to protect assets are not in place.

        2) Yes, but in Obama’s new tax law that has yet to be implemented does away with the capital loss to ordinary income and there is a new move afoot by Reid to re-institute the AMT, the Windfall Profits Tax, and bringing back that dreaded aggressive and passive income/loss rule. The main issue to me is that if I can be taxed on the gain immediately…I should be able to take the loss..all loss..immediately.

        3) It is a double tax in the way that the accounting procedure is used by the government. The value of the asset, should in no way be increased by the amount of money that it spins off. It should also be indexed for inflation. So, if the asset gains in value because of cash, and cash is considered ordinary income and you are taxed on that income, and then you are taxed on the increased value of the asset because of the income….that is double tax. And, no, it is not the same as interest. If I have a jumbo CD in the bank that is worth 100k…that is the worth. Any income off of that is taxable as ordinary income….the same as a dividend, But if dividends drive up the value of a stock and you have paid tax on the dividends, then the value of the stock should be reduced by the dividend amount before cap gains is administered.

        • 1) Did not mean to imply that there would necessarily be taxes due at death, though it is a possibility – though in certain cases this needs to be taken into account (afterall, you wouldn’t want to replace a 15% tax with a 45% tax!

          2) 2 points here — (a) Obama’s proposal as it currently stands will almost definitely not be law and (b) the limit for deductions only applies to using cap losses to offset ordinary income. I understand your point of having to recognize 100% of cap gains, but different tax rates apply. You are promoting having the ability to use 15% tax rate to offset income at a much higher rate. I would argue that you shouldn’t be able to use a dime of capital losses to offset ordinary income, unless of course the two were to be taxed at the same rates. Following my point here?

          3) depends upon how you look at it. In the sense that cap gains are a double tax since it is a tax on the rate of return (per your original post), then so is taxable interest from a bank account – it is a tax imposed on the rate of return of your investment, though at ordinary tax rates! As for dividends, not sure of your point – simply put, dividends are taxed at ordinary rates, but dividends have nothing to do with cap gains upon the sale of the underlying stock. Even if you use the dividend to purchase additional shares, those shares will have a different basis than your original shares. Or are you going somewhere else with this?

          • Hey Buckster….you are up late…….item 3.

            If I am not mistaken (and it could be that I am) but stock prices are the basis. I am paid a dividend and my dividend is taxed….I am in agreement here. BUT…..the accounting of the Fed is this…..since dividends and the payments thereof are directly related to the price of the stock…..ergo….the stock increases as the balance sheet that posts the cash increases.Since taxes are already paid on the dividends as ordinary income, then that amount should be a deductible item from the eventual sale of the stock price…indexed for inflation of course. To allow the cash to be posted to the balance sheet, the company gets to write off dividend payments but not the stock holder. Therefore, the balance sheet is pumped on the asset side that resulting pumped up value should not be part of cap gains. I van get more complex but I dont want to lose people….I may already have.

            • I am up late for SUFA — getting a few docs finalized for tomorrow morning.

              I fear you are combining two berry different things. A dividend is ‘interest’ being paid on a share, so to speak. Capital gains are based on appreciation from the sale of the share. Dividends do not directly impact the value of the stock – a lot more goes into stock values. I’m following what you are saying, but would argue that the two concepts are exclusive to one another from a tax perspective.

              • To clarify a bit, yes dividends do impact stock value, but I don’t believe there is a direct correlation sufficient to make a bright line rule such as the one you are trying to make. Didn’t mean to imply there is absolutely no relation. But too many variables go in to stock price.

  14. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

    The clear message from the Wall Street Journal chart is that the gold line (tax revenues) has been pretty steady at about 18-20% of GDP for 60 years even though the other line (tax rates) fluctuated from a high rate of 91% to a low of just under 30%. Despite changing tax rates, the actual tax revenues as a percentage of GDP really have not changed much.

    Even though the percentage of tax revenues compared to GDP has not changed much since 1965, the actual revenues in dollars have tripled:

    heritage-federal-government-revenues-600.jpg

    Source: Heritage Foundation

    Why did revenues triple despite lower tax rates? I think it is fair to say that economic growth resulted in higher tax revenues. While tax rates were falling over this period, 1965 — 2010, tax revenues tripled. Do you think there is a correlation between higher levels of economic growth and lower levels of taxation?

  15. I think I see the Colonel, or did I hear him?

  16. WOW………Christians……you have been vindicated. All this hoopla about Christ and resurrection………..there is now positive proof that it is possible…………………….

    Just ask the Democrats……they have been resurrecting the dead for ages.

  17. Anita, Are you in this guy’s district? He needs to be put out to pasture once and for all.

    http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/07/16/newspaper-endorsement-of-the-day-detroit-fp-endorses-rep-john-conyers/

    • Oh no, I’m not that close to 8 Mile. Yes, he needs to take a seat next to his wife in Jackson State Pen, but his homies keep electing him. I have to worry about Dingle, Stabenaw, and C.Levin. Dingle is the only one running from the three, and he’s unopposed at this time. Michigan is no help for the Senate GOP.

  18. @ Buck………back to the premise that lower capital gains create more treasury dollars seems to bear out in the CBO and Treasury reports. I think that locked in capital is freed more….I know we do that. If the cap gains go up, we will pull back. While some may not, I think most will or invest it offshore.

    • I’ll agree with that in theory — but again, we have not come close to reaching that point. The current debate is a rise from 15 to 20, still far below ordinary rates.

      • the “evil rich” and publicly demonized accordingly.

        Occupiers and union thugs publish their addresses online and organize annoyingly-loud protests in their driveways. Their workplaces are picketed. Their vehicles are vandalized and children shouted at going to elementary school (this is called free speech and assembly).

        But there are other rich folk who’ve escaped the wrath of the motivated left.
        Lawyers

        Have you noticed how few lawyers have been targeted by the Occupiers? Lawyers DO make a lot of money. We’ve all heard the stories of some being paid (in some cases) hundreds of dollars per hour. Some are even paid this amount by our government to sue private citizens or keep politicians out of trouble, if not jail.

        Lawyers have been consistently celebrated for decades with the amount of primetime television programs and movies devoted to their many exploits.

        Where’s the outrage?

        Granted, the American Bar Association has a rather consistent track record when it comes to support of the Democrat Party, liberal politicians and positions, but if we’re to be consistent, some of these lawyers make much more money than the average Occupier would think they need.

        Must be that pro-bono work certain lawyers do on behalf of liberal causes that keep them out of the activist cross-hairs.
        Celebrities

        One of the benefits of having a largely liberal media is the lack of scrutiny celebrity anchors and journalists receive. Granted, this is one of the few arenas where free-market inflated-salary haggling is seldom criticized by progressives, but can anyone explain to me how Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, or almost any “face” on CNN or MSNBC is worth the million-dollar salaries they receive for reading a teleprompter?

        When was the last time any of you recall seeing the “99%” protesting the obscene profits some of these news celebs receive? Personally, I can’t name one instance where a busload of protesters bull-horned in front of Chelsea Handler’s home (and given her ratings, maybe they should).

        Many of you know I am an avid sports fan, and I respect the amount of work professional athletes put in to master their craft, but c’mon: using the left’s criteria on people making more money than they’re worth in comparison to “the little guy”, is Drew Brees really worth a 5-year, $100 million contract, with no less than $60 million in guaranteed money? Is Occupy New Orleans going to squat in front of the Louisiana Superdome and protest until they receive an assurance that he’s going to pay his “fair share” of taxes?

        When was the last time you heard the president be specific when he talked about “millionaires and billionaires” and “corporate jet owners”? Professional athletes like LeBron James and entertainers like Jay-Z and George Clooney don’t fly coach. Now while very few own their own limousines and aircraft, many wealth-flaunting celebrities use them with little public objection from the “99%” and their leaders.

        It all comes down to who’s given certain rich people a pass.

        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48088

      • No, not yet…20% will not cause us to back off…….but when you combine that with the increase in ordinary income, and I have both, then it starts to add up. And, Obama’s tax plan for 2014. and 2015 keep the cap gains increasing.

      • Mathius says:

        Many are fleeing a proposed new higher tax rate of 75 per cent on all earnings over one million euros. (£780,000)

        That’s probably on the high side of the Laffer Curve. US top marginal rate is 35%, and the super wealthy don’t pay anything even remotely close to that – if they did, they should fire their accountants.

        Romney’s filings indicate that his effective federal income-tax rate in 2010 was 13.9 per cent, and his estimated rate for 2011 is 15.4 per cent.

        Moving along…

        • That’s ok…..look at Obama;s tax filing….and Nancy Pelosi’s tax filing…..their respective tax rates are about the same. My tax rate……11.4%. So what?

          • Mathius says:

            Because MY tax rate is something like 28%.

            There’s no reason I should be paying a higher rate than you and Nancy.

            • Probably because I have a LLC……I have significant investments in rolling assets and a ton of depreciation to take. And I hire people like Buck to make sure I get all the available deductions. You can do the same….all it takes is money…….time……risk……no children that are brand new…..15 hour works days……..

              But I know that I have not done any of this on my own….Obama told me so.

  19. charlieopera says:

    @ BF and Matthius:

    Jesus.. it’s like arguing with a oak tree..

    Yes, it is … and the idiot even pointed to my claiming sanctions used by nation states against one another is a form of violence … which is what I was claiming … and he stated “I was wrong” …

    Backed into a corner, huh?

    What a pompous ass hat …

    • You’re daft, Charlie

      You said -direct quote-

      Or the use of sanctions between countries … it’s not violent but it sure is coercive

      You can’t even follow your own words.

      • Charlie….the secret to BF….is in his definitions. May I suggest that you ask him to once again define the use of the term coercion and violence. He really is pretty easy to understand because he is consistent. Just as you are.

%d bloggers like this: