Trump took 160 million from Soros, and was accused of money laundering with Soros

[ultramanhyata]

I find this stereotypical depiction of a Jheri curled, foul-mouthed, criminally violent African American male highly offensive. Will be reporting this post.

 

[Madmick]

You're changing the subject. My point was about capital vs. labor.

No, it was on point. "Capital" is not a concept restrictive to the capital gains tax, Jack. The "capital gains" tax and "labor" don't even make sense as mutually exclusive reflexive economic forces or principles. These are broad strokes for broad brushes.

Er, when I see bullshit, I call it out (and even though you were unfamiliar enough with the subject to be fooled by the chart, I'm pretty sure my explanation was simple enough for you to understand). And you're doing what you do when that happens--running, attacking and declaring victory. Do-si-do.

I've spent too much time smashing you over and over again in the past. I no longer have the patience for that, although it is entertaining to watch Zankou throw you about like a ragdoll when you brainlessly shill for Soros/Clinton and the Democratic Party the way you so predictably do in all matters. There is little benefit to correcting the ignorance of an eloquent sheep.

The entire premise of this thread accepts from the outset that Soros is a nefarious figure, so apparently you've taken to your education on that matter. Everyone in here accepts this, so I have nothing to gain by throwing out about for everyone to see. My objective is already achieved.

So I smash and move on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, it was on point. "Capital" is not a concept restrictive to the capital gains tax, Jack. The "capital gains" tax and "labor" don't even make sense as mutually exclusive reflexive economic forces or principles. These are broad strokes for broad brushes.

Er, it's actually pretty simple. Just admit that you don't really know anything about economics in general and you fell for a bit of propaganda.

I've spent too much time smashing you over and over again in the past. I no longer have the patience for that, although it is entertaining to watch Zankou throw you about like a ragdoll when you brainlessly shill for Soros/Clinton and the Democratic Party the way you so predictably do in all matters. There is little benefit to correcting the ignorance of an eloquent sheep.

Pretty sure even Zank wouldn't agree with that characterization (given that he doesn't share your fanatical intellectual insecurity), but I like the Chester/Spike act.

The entire premise of this thread accepts from the outset that Soros is a nefarious figure, so apparently you've taken to your education on that matter. Everyone in here accepts this, so I have nothing to gain by throwing out about for everyone to see. My objective is already achieved.

So I smash and move on.

You assert that you've smashed, and then run, yes. But the fact remains (and it's pretty obvious) that you were fooled by some cheap propaganda. Here's the post that traumatized you so much again:

"If you want to get serious about this completely unrelated issue, think about the things that affect income-tax revenue (isolating that) relative to GDP: rates; nominal growth (inflation plus real income growth), which puts more people in higher brackets; and tax expenditures. Any of those individual things can have an effect that wash out the others (or they can reinforce each other). If the claim is that reducing rates increases nominal growth to the point that revenue increases, that requires a very different kind of evidence (and, hint, serious looks into that question don't support that conclusion at all)."

And, yes, there are a lot of right-wing nutters that uncritically buy attacks on Soros, just as they do with everyone that the right sees as a threat. You know that regardless of the truth of the matter, any politically active individual who goes against the right gets that treatment and an army of you sheep who go along with it. That's why it's important to actually look into it (important to people who care about getting things right and not smearing someone who doesn't deserve it).

 

[Madmick]

Er, it's actually pretty simple. Just admit that you don't really know anything about economics in general and you fell for a bit of propaganda.

It's propaganda that income and corporate tax rates don't linearly reflect effective tax rates?

Oh, Jackie boy. Whoops.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

Trump basically cut out the middleman.


Of course he wasn't for the people at all lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's propaganda that income and corporate tax rates don't linearly reflect effective tax rates?

Oh, Jackie boy. Whoops.

Er, I said, " If you think that, say, eliminating taxation on capital (as Rubio, allegedly one of the sane Republicans) makes workers better off relative to capital, I have a bridge to sell you. And you'd still be left-leaning in terms of your sentiment if you favored it for that reason; just not intelligent about it."

Nothing about income-tax revenue linearly reflecting ETRs (that's what you meant to say, right? Your actual comment doesn't make any sense--of course rates linearly reflect rates). Then you post a chart from right-wing lobbyists designed to argue that tax rates don't affect revenue, and I responded:

"If you want to get serious about this completely unrelated issue, think about the things that affect income-tax revenue (isolating that) relative to GDP: rates; nominal growth (inflation plus real income growth), which puts more people in higher brackets; and tax expenditures. Any of those individual things can have an effect that wash out the others (or they can reinforce each other). If the claim is that reducing rates increases nominal growth to the point that revenue increases, that requires a very different kind of evidence (and, hint, serious looks into that question don't support that conclusion at all)."

Again, looks like you're in over your head. It's cool.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Like all politicians she has flaws but everything she gets accused of is never proven true

She is a well known liar and one of the most corrupt politician out there.
If you can't see that,there is really no help for you.

 

[Madmick]

Er, I said, " If you think that, say, eliminating taxation on capital (as Rubio, allegedly one of the sane Republicans) makes workers better off relative to capital, I have a bridge to sell you. And you'd still be left-leaning in terms of your sentiment if you favored it for that reason; just not intelligent about it."

Nothing about income-tax revenue linearly reflecting ETRs (that's what you meant to say, right? Your actual comment doesn't make any sense--of course rates linearly reflect rates). Then you post a chart from right-wing lobbyists designed to argue that tax rates don't affect revenue, and I responded:

"If you want to get serious about this completely unrelated issue, think about the things that affect income-tax revenue (isolating that) relative to GDP: rates; nominal growth (inflation plus real income growth), which puts more people in higher brackets; and tax expenditures. Any of those individual things can have an effect that wash out the others (or they can reinforce each other). If the claim is that reducing rates increases nominal growth to the point that revenue increases, that requires a very different kind of evidence (and, hint, serious looks into that question don't support that conclusion at all)."

Again, looks like you're in over your head. It's cool.

My sweet Lord. You think I was defending the Laffer Curve. "Effective" is merely a word used here to indicate actual revenue collected as a percentage of taxation. Quite clearly, that isn't linearly related to the marginal tax rates. None of these terms dizzy me, Jack, you'll need to find a new tactic as you don't possess no advantage of lexicon. If you want to masturbate with your socialist swill, then you may do so by pointing to where the income tax revenue and tax rates mirror one another:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Spoiler

Here are those marginal income tax rates (the dark green in the above chart):

Let's cut to the jib. While the left's desire may be to continue increasing tax revenue as a percentage of the GDP, they haven't succeeded much in that regard, nor would it behoove the American people if they did (as even the most "successful" socialist country in the world, Portugal, depended on bailout from friendly surrounding capitalist countries in their economic union); yet the left's true goal is to redistribute wealth, but they have failed spectacularly even in that pursuit. Evidence? Well, let's consider that the ultrawealthy have utterly sailed away in terms of wealth relative to the American people over the past quarter century.

• 15 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic Presidents controlling the White House
• 15 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic majorities in the Senate
• 8 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic majorities in the House

The Democrats don't give a shit about labor or "the working man". The only thing they have successfully created is a welfare state.


*Edit* Oh yeah, and it's probably worth mentioning that Bush Jr. was considered one of the worst fiscal conservatives in history in terms of spending policy. He was basically a liberal who left office with the stimulus as his last major economic act.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My sweet Lord. You think I was defending the Laffer Curve. "Effective" is merely a word used here to indicate actual revenue collected as a percentage of taxation.

Er, right. And what you did was cite a cheap bit of propaganda that didn't include relevant info that effects the issue. For example, tax expenditures. And if you're not defending the claim that rate cuts increase revenue, what was the point, exactly? What it looks like is that your claim was refuted so you've retreated to denying you were making it, leaving you with ... well, nothing. "Here, look at this pretty picture."

Let's cut to the jib. While the left's desire may be to continue increasing tax revenue as a percentage of the GDP, they haven't succeeded much in that regard, nor would it behoove the American people if they did (as even the most "successful" socialist country in the world, Portugal, depended on bailout from friendly surrounding capitalist countries in their economic union);

Hmm. Not sure why on Earth you'd think that the left's desire would be to continue increasing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. That's as WTFy as anything Gruber or Tropodan would say. What we saw with, for example, Sanders was a desire to increase revenue as a way to pay for specific programs without expanding deficits too much. There's an endgame and a purpose for the increase.

yet the left's true goal is to redistribute wealth, but they have failed spectacularly even in that pursuit. Evidence? Well, let's consider that the ultrawealthy have utterly sailed away in terms of wealth relative to the American people over the past quarter century.

That's a little better. Lift the bottom and the median at the expense of the top.

15 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic Presidents controlling the White House

• 15 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic majorities in the Senate
• 8 of the past 23 years have seen Democratic majorities in the House

That's pretty terrible, and hackish, analysis. What you want to do is isolate the effects of specific programs and adjust for other trends, etc. And, again, you're falling into parroting talking points that aren't relevant to the specific discussion. Ideologically, "labor vs. capital" is roughly equivalent to "left vs. right." If your position is that the policies advanced by the right today (eliminating taxation on large estates, reducing or eliminating taxation on capital gains, reducing income support for the poor, reducing entitlements, etc.) do a better job of achieving the goals of the left than policies that they advocate (increasing taxation on capital gains, broadening income support, aggressively pursuing full employment through expansionary monetary and fiscal (when appropriate) policy, etc.), you're very wrong, but that's a separate point.

The Democrats don't give a shit about labor or "the working man". The only thing they have successfully created is a welfare state.

Another talking point repeated. Good little soldier, you are.

 

[Madmick]

Er, right. And what you did was cite a cheap bit of propaganda that didn't include relevant info that effects the issue. For example, tax expenditures. And if you're not defending the claim that rate cuts increase revenue, what was the point, exactly?

It was very straightforward observation of the fact that liberal tax policies (specifically marginal rates) and liberal political control hold no direct relationship to the effective taxation of the utlrawealthy, nor to the share of the wealth. From the outset of this exchange you tried to reduce left vs. right to labor vs. capital on the basis of capital gains taxes-- quite literally shoehorning that in. But that isn't what Hendo said. He was opposing labor to "capital holders", and the latter is quite clearly a reference simply to those who possess wealth. You are so devoutly zombified in the leftist agenda that anyone committed to your redistributional, socialist philosophy can do no wrong, and that's why you got slapped around by Zankou over Soros, and why you got slapped around by Anung Un Rama (and the entire forum) over Clinton.

Hendo doesn't agree with you because he is reluctant to embrace that willful stupidity. Why? Because the very people making the laws, both for left and right, regardless of the propaganda they parrot, or successfully engineer their stooges to parrot, as you do, are perhaps the wealthiest group of professionals of any group of professionals in the country outside the Finance District of Manhattan itself, and the continuing irony is that many of those investment bankers and financiers are themselves handling these professionals' money, and directing their legislation for mutual benefit-- Democrat or Republican.

Here, those with a green number next to their name are the Democrats. Even in a Congress of millionaires the wealth concentrates at the top, and 9/15 of the richest congresspeople are Democrats. I'm sure they are super concerned with the loopholes surrounding capital gains equity. They yap and yap and yap about "closing the loopholes", both parties, but loopholes never seem to get closed. Only difference seems to be the Republicans place less of a burden on the middle class. With the Democrats, the marginal rates go up, the corporate rates go up, and ultimately...the middle class pays for fucking everyone. But guys like you don't give a shit because it's all just a glorified agenda to take money from the working class CIS white male "patriarchy" and redistribute it to the same group of wealthy elites (the Democrats slightly less white than the Republicans) while dispensing just enough crumbs to the nonwhite lower classes that you shore up their votes and perpetuate this scheme:
http://media.cq.com/50Richest/

That's pretty terrible, and hackish, analysis. What you want to do is isolate the effects of specific programs and adjust for other trends, etc. And, again, you're falling into parroting talking points that aren't relevant to the specific discussion. Ideologically, "labor vs. capital" is roughly equivalent to "left vs. right." If your position is that the policies advanced by the right today (eliminating taxation on large estates, reducing or eliminating taxation on capital gains, reducing income support for the poor, reducing entitlements, etc.) do a better job of achieving the goals of the left than policies that they advocate (increasing taxation on capital gains, broadening income support, aggressively pursuing full employment through expansionary monetary and fiscal (when appropriate) policy, etc.), you're very wrong, but that's a separate point.

Predictable pass-the-buck response. "Hackish" is an interesting word for refusing responsibility.

You're wrong, but that's already been established.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It was very straightforward observation of the fact that liberal tax policies (specifically marginal rates) and liberal political control hold no direct relationship to the effective taxation of the utlrawealthy, nor to the share of the wealth.

You didn't make that case at all, and it's certainly not a fact.

From the outset of this exchange you tried to reduce left vs. right to labor vs. capital on the basis of capital gains taxes-- quite literally shoehorning that in.

This is what I said, "If you think that, say, eliminating taxation on capital (as Rubio, allegedly one of the sane Republicans) makes workers better off relative to capital, I have a bridge to sell you. And you'd still be left-leaning in terms of your sentiment if you favored it for that reason; just not intelligent about it." See, to people who read well, that "say" means I'm offering an example. I could offer many others (inheritance taxation, MW, various regs, etc.), but this is pretty obvious stuff.

But that isn't what Hendo said. He was opposing labor to "capital holders", and the latter is quite clearly a reference simply to those who possess wealth.

And that also applies to left vs. right. That's what the spectrum largely is about. You're trying to have it both ways. "You're a leftist extremist because you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but rich vs. poor or capital vs. labor isn't the same as left vs. right."

You are so devoutly zombified in the leftist agenda that anyone committed to your redistributional, socialist philosophy can do no wrong, and that's why you got slapped around by Zankou over Soros, and why you got slapped around by Anung Un Rama (and the entire forum) over Clinton.

But this is retarded. I'm not a socialist (seriously, WTF?), I disagree with lots of leftists on substantive issues, etc. That's just the kinds of things you say when you don't want to face any actual thought. I get that it's hard, and that simply looking for an excuse to dismiss arguments that you're not emotionally prepared to accept and not intellectually equipped to refute is much easier, but your efforts are pretty transparent. Maybe just stop digging?

Hendo doesn't agree with you because he is reluctant to embrace that willful stupidity.

Yeah, if there's one thing Hendo and Anung don't do, it's embrace willful stupidity.

Predictable pass-the-buck response. "Hackish" is an interesting word for refusing responsibility.

You're wrong, but that's already been established.

You don't establish a fact by asserting it with no evidence (and, indeed, in the face of evidence). As I said, if you want to do serious policy analysis, there's a way, and it's not what you were doing. If you want to just repeat hackwork (that even you have to be able to recognize as such), you're doing fine.

 

[Madmick]

You didn't make that case at all, and it's certainly not a fact.

This is what I said, "If you think that, say, eliminating taxation on capital (as Rubio, allegedly one of the sane Republicans) makes workers better off relative to capital, I have a bridge to sell you. And you'd still be left-leaning in terms of your sentiment if you favored it for that reason; just not intelligent about it." See, to people who read well, that "say" means I'm offering an example. I could offer many others (inheritance taxation, MW, various regs, etc.), but this is pretty obvious stuff.

This is like the third time you've felt the need to quote yourself in order to offer some additional hedge on the matter.

And that also applies to left vs. right. That's what the spectrum largely is about. You're trying to have it both ways. "You're a leftist extremist because you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but rich vs. poor or capital vs. labor isn't the same as left vs. right."

Precisely. You're finally getting it. Business owners and especially individual entrepreneurs (who may be self-employed or not themselves directly employ people) aren't necessarily in the 1%. This doesn't even approach the loosely related truth that 100% of jobs that don't exist can't be placed in opposition to the employer providing them.

Yeah, if there's one thing Hendo and Anung don't do, it's embrace willful stupidity.

You don't establish a fact by asserting it with no evidence (and, indeed, in the face of evidence). As I said, if you want to do serious policy analysis, there's a way, and it's not what you were doing. If you want to just repeat hackwork (that even you have to be able to recognize as such), you're doing fine.

Yeah, those guys are so dumb, amirite? Not at all like a shill whose "hackwork" involves advocating the position that Hillary didn't flip-flop on the TPP and that memes out there demonstrating she was for it while Bernie was against it are "propaganda":
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/b...inaugural-address-now.3129719/#post-111759377
I will never stop abusing you with this. You aren't entitled to call anyone a "hack". You don't care about the truth. You are a consummate Democratic loyalist. You are the definition of a hack.

The notion of Labor vs. Capitol Holder is broader than the "serious policy analysis" of mere tax proposals, not that you've even attempted to address the discrepancy in those rates and the revenue (or portion of of total revenue) collected, and from which bracket. Cursory evidence was provided, but just like you always do, you sit there and yammer about Rubio proposing to abolish the Capital Gains tax like that reflects the reality of how the parties and their policies realized in actual legislation have actually affected the wealth distribution in this country.

You're still trying to tell all of us what a wonderful policy the ACA (i.e. Obamacare) has been for the working class Joe-- the laborer, right? Last I checked the insurance companies were abandoning ship, and the people shouldering the bills are wearing every shade and cut of collar but bespoke.

Fuck off with your DNC propaganda, Jack. Even working class Americans stopped buying it. In fact, specifically them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is like the third time you've felt the need to quote yourself in order to offer some additional hedge on the matter.

It's the third time you seemed to be lost and in need of that.

Precisely. You're finally getting it. Business owners and especially individual entrepreneurs (who may be self-employed or not themselves directly employ people) aren't necessarily in the 1%. This doesn't even approach the loosely related truth that 100% of jobs that don't exist can't be placed in opposition to the employer providing them.

I'm got that your position is hopelessly muddled from the start. Hopefully you're getting it now.

Yeah, those guys are so dumb, amirite?

Regardless of your positions on issues, I think you can tell that Hendo and Anung are pretty dumb.

I will never stop abusing you with this. You aren't entitled to call anyone a "hack". You don't care about the truth. You are a consummate Democratic loyalist. You are the definition of a hack.

The WR nutter definition is "someone who holds a position that I don't agree with." What I meant was pretty specific. Again, anyone with relevant education could instantly see the problems with that graph, and even you had to see it after I explained it to you.

The notion of Labor vs. Capitol Holder is broader than the "serious policy analysis" of mere tax proposals, not that you've even attempted to address the discrepancy in those rates and the revenue (or portion of of total revenue) collected, and from which bracket.

Why would I? It's not relevant to this discussion. What is not serious policy analysis is, "X held Y office, and Z happened." Again, it doesn't matter what your position is; that's pure hackwork.

Cursory evidence was provided, but just like you always do, you sit there and yammer about Rubio proposing to abolish the Capital Gains tax like that reflects the reality of how the parties and their policies realized in actual legislated have actually affected the wealth distribution in this country.

I don't know if you realize how law is passed in America. It's a pretty mainstream position in the GOP (as evidenced by the favored candidate of donors at a fairly late point in the race advancing it) that capital gains should not be taxed. It's even more mainstream in the party that large inheritances should not be taxed. And that entitlements should be cut. Etc. Those positions haven't translated into policies because there is an opposition party. Likewise, Democrats want a ridiculously large MW, but it's not likely to happen unless they really kick ass in November.

You're still trying to tell all of us what a wonderful policy the ACA (i.e. Obamacare) has been for the working class Joe-- the laborer, right? Last I checked the insurance companies were abandoning ship, and the people shouldering the bills are wearing every shade of collar but bespoke.

The numbers are in. It's pretty clear that the ACA has been a huge boon for the working class. Not really much of a debate. Look at medical bankruptcies, medical debt, uninsurance and underinsurance rates, and cost growth. Or think of your own metrics for evaluating the issue, and look into it. I know that's asking too much, and you guys prefer unverified and dubious anecdotes or counting negative news stories that you remember...

 

[Madmick]

The numbers are in. It's pretty clear that the ACA has been a huge boon for the working class. Not really much of a debate. Look at medical bankruptcies, medical debt, uninsurance and underinsurance rates, and cost growth. Or think of your own metrics for evaluating the issue, and look into it. I know that's asking too much, and you guys prefer unverified and dubious anecdotes or counting negative news stories that you remember...

This is what I mean. You just can't help yourself. It's like Trump attacking people who say anything negative about him. Jack simply can't....stop....MUST...be...answered...defend...the Democrats!!!

I have yet to meet a medical doctor anywhere where I live who thinks this policy is anything other than an outright disaster for everyone. Keep a few dozen on my Facebook page. They're not alone. Even the NPR & Harvard survey demonstrate its failures (from March 2016):

http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2016/02/26/PatientPerspectives.pdf

It's a pretty mainstream position in the GOP (as evidenced by the favored candidate of donors at a fairly late point in the race advancing it) that capital gains should not be taxed. It's even more mainstream in the party that large inheritances should not be taxed. And that entitlements should be cut. Etc. Those positions haven't translated into policies because there is an opposition party. Likewise, Democrats want a ridiculously large MW, but it's not likely to happen unless they really kick ass in November.

This is why you're a DNC hack. Facts are hard.

In a field of 15 Republicans only Rubio, Carson, and Huckabee proposed an outright abolition of the capital gains tax, and Huckabee is after the FairTax (which is just a glorified flat tax rooted in sales, and not at all reflective of mainstream conservative tax policy, but would characterize the old Reform Party philosophy whereabouts they're still kicking). Carson was an anti-establishment dipshit. Jindal's proposal would effectively increase the capital gains taxes. The current nominee, Trump, idiot that he is, merely proposes repealing Obama's surtax.

http://taxfoundation.org/comparing-2016-presidential-tax-reform-proposals

Your unending and asinine misrepresentations of Republicans are as transparent as they are certain to be rolled up and rolled out. The glass isn't tinted. We can all see you.

Regardless of your positions on issues, I think you can tell that Hendo and Anung are pretty dumb.

No single thing you have ever said is a more succinct distillation of the great difference between us. On the contrary, I think when I disagree with them, it is in spite of their capability, not because of it.

You, on the other hand, as always, prove an intractable waste of my time. I scold you only to offer bearing to more rational passerby minds who you would impugn merely for resisting the partisan slavishness you so gleefully embrace.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

How many countries to the right of the US on the graph had a lower top marginal tax rate than the US?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have yet to meet a medical doctor anywhere where I live who thinks this policy is anything other than an outright disaster for everyone. Keep a few dozen on my Facebook page. They're not alone. Even the NPR & Harvard survey demonstrate its failures (from March 2016):

This is the kind of thing that makes you look like a rube. Even if you know a hundred doctors, that's nothing like a representative sample. And polls instead of hard numbers? I mean, seriously, WTF? You know this isn't how you do analysis, right?

This is why you're a DNC hack. Facts are hard.

Facts are hard. I told you where to look if you want to evaluate the bill on its merits, and you start talking about polls and your sample of doctors that you know personally--i.e., things that are not facts. See the difference between hackery and serious analysis is where the conclusion comes in. Do you start with a method and metrics and then work toward your conclusion, or do you do it your way?

In a field of 15 Republicans only Rubio, Carson, and Huckabee proposed an outright abolition of the capital gains tax, and Huckabee is after the FairTax (which is just a glorified flat tax rooted in sales, and not at all reflective of mainstream conservative tax policy, but would characterize the old Reform Party philosophy whereabouts they're still kicking).

So 20% of presidential candidates wanted to outright eliminate capital gains taxes, 47% propose reducing capital-gains taxes, and and 33% have no proposal. Sounds like you made my point.

No single thing you have ever said is a more succinct distillation of the great difference between us. On the contrary, I think when I disagree with them, it is in spite of their capability, not because of it.

I feel the same. If you're defending obvious morons because they're on your "side," that says more about you than I can.

You, on the other hand, as always, prove an intractable waste of my time. I scold you only to offer bearing to more rational passerby minds who you would impugn merely for resisting the partisan slavishness you so gleefully embrace.

This is comically stilted. You're starting to make me suspect parody.

 

[Madmick]

This is the kind of thing that makes you look like a rube. Even if you know a hundred doctors, that's nothing like a representative sample. And polls instead of hard numbers? I mean, seriously, WTF? You know this isn't how you do analysis, right?

Facts are hard. I told you where to look if you want to evaluate the bill on its merits, and you start talking about polls and your sample of doctors that you know personally--i.e., things that are not facts. See the difference between hackery and serious analysis is where the conclusion comes in. Do you start with a method and metrics and then work toward your conclusion, or do you do it your way?

Yes, asking people directly if their rates went up or down is a horrible way to figure out if their rates went up or down. I'm sure you can walk the imbeciles at Harvard through your brilliant analysis of DNC propaganda explaining to them how they're actually paying less than they were before.

So 20% of presidential candidates wanted to outright eliminate capital gains taxes, 47% propose reducing capital-gains taxes, and and 33% have no proposal. Sounds like you made my point.

Since your point was that it was mainstream for Republican policy to be that capital gains "should not be taxed"...no, I didn't. I bent you over the table in regard to a bullshit claim.

I feel the same. If you're defending obvious morons because they're on your "side," that says more about you than I can.

This is comically stilted. You're starting to make me suspect parody.

I wasn't aware that AUR, Hendo, and I were on the same "side"...except when it comes to what a partisan hack you are. On that we're agreed, I suppose.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yes, asking people directly if their rates went up or down is a horrible way to figure out if their rates went up or down. I'm sure you can walk the imbeciles at Harvard through your brilliant analysis of DNC propaganda explaining to them how they're actually paying less than they were before.

Since your point was that it was mainstream for Republican policy to be that capital gains "should not be taxed"...no, I didn't. I bent you over the table in regard to a bullshit claim.

I wasn't aware that AUR, Hendo, and I were on the same "side"...except when it comes to what a partisan hack you are. On that we're agreed, I suppose.

Here is what is fucking nutz to me. There are about 1 billions miles between, Georic, yourself, AUG, and myself on the ideological sprectrum.

And yet, there is one thing half this forum seems to agree with, no matter where they lie on the ideological spectrum.

Yeah, I'm taking shots at Jack right now cuz he rubbed me the wrong way, but it doesn't make what I just said any less true.