Jump to content

Joe Biden 2021


tantric superman

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Blotto said:

If you have different data, please share I can always learn. But on my charts the significant divergence coincides exactly with Reagan taking office. Trickle down is bullshit. It stays in their fucking pockets. 

 

zirp started in 2008. Please explain 1980 thru 2008, when rates spent a fair amount of time between 5% & 15%. I don't doubt zirp compounds the problem, but the point of divergence happens far before zirp. 

It was an easy chart to find that also provided dollar figures. are you suggesting that you dont think the same trend would exist between 1980 and 2005?

The divergence on your chart clearly starts before 1980. Not sure what you’re looking at. 
 

Yeah trickle down helps the rich. It’s what happens when you’re close to the money tap. Massive deficit spending plus decreasing interest rates is great for elites.

Edited by Satoshi
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

The divergence on your chart clearly starts before 1980. Not sure what you’re looking at. 
 

Yeah trickle down helps the rich. It’s what happens when you’re close to the money tap. Massive deficit spending plus decreasing interest rates is great for elites.

I'm having a hard time following you champ. My original contention was that the primary factor that triggered wealth disparity was reagan's bullshit tax decisions. You countered with  nope, "the Federal Reserve and zirp is the number one driver of inequality."

So then I show the same trend existed for the 15 years prior to zirp, a period where interest rates were as high as 15%. Which then elicits a response from you "Yeah trickle down helps the rich." No shit dumbass, that was my f'n point to begin with. 

But I shouldnt be surprised, because you're also trying to argue that the point of significant divergence on my original chart was prior to 1980.

image.png.a6f059822f24750f5cac2862d5e2ebef.png

yes, there is some variance in the years prior,  but if you can't spot the point in time on this chart where shit gets real, there's no point in continuing the discussion. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

I think it is tribal. A certain poor class, mostly white and hard-up immigrants, identify with the rich as being one of their own, either racially or for allowing to escape their poor countries to the US, respectively. Hence, a zealous guarding of "their" wealth from the moochers and no-gooders who want to steal "their" wealth through taxes.

That and the "American way" and the "American Dream" 1 in a billion story. Like an astute gentleman on twitter once said, "those who say follow your passion are already billionaires. There is 1 in a billion Jay-Z's and assume you aren't a Jay-Z."

But then you read something like I did today about a wallet who invested $8000 in Shiba Inu coin that is now worth $5bn, 400 days later. 

And with all the crypto and meme stonk millionaires, it's easy to see where people get the idea that in the land of chaos and amorality, you are a day away from rags to riches. Literally, at times.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I'm having a hard time following you champ. My original contention was that the primary factor that triggered wealth disparity was reagan's bullshit tax decisions. You countered with  nope, "the Federal Reserve and zirp is the number one driver of inequality."

So then I show the same trend existed for the 15 years prior to zirp, a period where interest rates were as high as 15%. Which then elicits a response from you "Yeah trickle down helps the rich." No shit dumbass, that was my f'n point to begin with. 

But I shouldnt be surprised, because you're also trying to argue that the point of significant divergence on my original chart was prior to 1980.

image.png.a6f059822f24750f5cac2862d5e2ebef.png

yes, there is some variance in the years prior,  but if you can't spot the point in time on this chart where shit gets real, there's no point in continuing the discussion. 

So what does trickle down economics mean to you?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

So what does trickle down economics mean to you?

To me it means allowing the rich to keep more money through a more favorable tax policy in hopes that they will invest that money in the economy benefitting everyone. Wiki would say:

image.thumb.png.f4f7949ee7d7f3ee45de314eb6b7cfe8.png

again, its total bullshit, because the wealth aggregates at the top. The numbers don't lie. Most dont recirculate the money.

Quote

Until recently, Bezos had drawn considerable criticism for his desultory appetite for philanthropy. Polls make it clear that since America’s tax system largely protects income that is accrued via the growth of existing wealth and thus rewards the rich, its inhabitants also expect that their richer fellow citizens should be generous in spreading around their surplus. However, the very wealthy are also criticized when they do donate money because their money effects social change and that change needs to be thoughtfully managed. Perhaps because of this dichotomy, Bezos has been long on promises but delivered about $1.5 billion in actual funds, about 0.7% of his wealth. He is also one of the few mega-wealthy individuals who has not signed the Giving Pledge, a promise to give at least half of one’s wealth away.

 https://time.com/6082884/jeff-bezos-philanthropy-priorities/

good thing he holds onto the other $190 billion. You never know when you're gonna get hit with some unexpected car bills or your HVAC system at your 5th vacation home goes on the fritz. 

This is also turning into quite the thread derail, perhaps better suited for a different thread. 

Edited by Blotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Every dollar you own should be taxed the same.  A dollar is a dollar.   

The marginal utility of each additional dollar past a certain points is diminishing, so no.

This very fact is part of the reason that progressive taxation has been widely accepted, and is clearly the most equitable approach to in an economy driven by naturally inequitable market forces.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

And the billionaires have somehow convinced people living pay check to pay check to defend them.

Apparently it's not that hard.  Hell, back in the 1850s and into the 1860s, a small group of wealthy folks convinced a lot of poors and idiots to sacrifice their lives to protect their right to own human beings.  They did it with newspapers, and with the idea that the poors/idiots would someday also get to own their own human beings, or at least should have the right to own one, even if they couldn't afford it.

And they did such things multiple times through our nation's history, whether it was slavery or taxes or going to war with this or that country or whatever.  They just needed a good outlet to spread the word, and they needed to dangle a big enough carrot.

These days they do it with cheap goods (Cletus in the double-wide can afford a big-screen TV) using rich guys named Tucker on ubiquitous media outlets, and they convince the poors and idiots that they too can have a much better lifestyle if it just wasn't for those pesky taxes.  It has nothing to do with a lack of education or lack of job opportunities or poor money management, it's all about those pesky taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is pretty astounding. I don’t know if it’s the poors thinking they might someday be billionaires so don’t tax me in the future, or if it’s just their general stupidity. 

Well, it's related to the American Dream mythology.  You don't want to overtax those big boys, they create all the jobs, and it trickles down other ways. too.  Grab your bootstraps and work real hard in one of those jobs and you'll be rich, too.  You don't wanna be taxed to death then, do ya?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

To me it means allowing the rich to keep more money through a more favorable tax policy in hopes that they will invest that money in the economy benefitting everyone. Wiki would say:

image.thumb.png.f4f7949ee7d7f3ee45de314eb6b7cfe8.png

again, its total bullshit, because the wealth aggregates at the top. The numbers don't lie. Most dont recirculate the money.

 https://time.com/6082884/jeff-bezos-philanthropy-priorities/

good thing he holds onto the other $190 billion. You never know when you're gonna get hit with some unexpected car bills or your HVAC system at your 5th vacation home goes on the fritz. 

This is also turning into quite the thread derail, perhaps better suited for a different thread. 

I think, ultimately, "trickle down" was based on a vague notion that the wealthy and corporations would behave altruistically, beyond the natural economic mechanisms that might cause corporate and owner wealth expansion to expand other wealth.

But, we kind of know from the communist experiment, and some of the socialist experiments, that altruism is not an economically dependable "force" in the same way that greed or self-interest is.  Greed won the trickle down round, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President is abroad.

  • The Vatican now.
  • Glasgow is the centerpiece. Biden can say the US is doing better, maybe. But we certainly do not lead. 
  • G-20 will determine posture on China by potential allies.
    • Euro wants to expand engagement with China.
    • The Administration needs to reinforce the need for economic unity given conditions in the Pacific.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Blotto said:

I'm having a hard time following you champ. My original contention was that the primary factor that triggered wealth disparity was reagan's bullshit tax decisions. You countered with  nope, "the Federal Reserve and zirp is the number one driver of inequality."

So then I show the same trend existed for the 15 years prior to zirp, a period where interest rates were as high as 15%. Which then elicits a response from you "Yeah trickle down helps the rich." No shit dumbass, that was my f'n point to begin with. 

But I shouldnt be surprised, because you're also trying to argue that the point of significant divergence on my original chart was prior to 1980.

image.png.a6f059822f24750f5cac2862d5e2ebef.png

yes, there is some variance in the years prior,  but if you can't spot the point in time on this chart where shit gets real, there's no point in continuing the discussion. 

 

9 hours ago, Satoshi said:

So what does trickle down economics mean to you?

Pivot GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Depends on how you want to frame it.  Better in the quarter, but a pay cut in real terms year over year.  

"However, compared with a year ago, it’s a closer call. In the year ending in September, wages and salaries soared 4.2%, also a record gain. But the government also reported Friday that prices increased 4.4% in September from year earlier. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, inflation was 3.6% in the past year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

Depends on how you want to frame it.  Better in the quarter, but a pay cut in real terms year over year.  

"However, compared with a year ago, it’s a closer call. In the year ending in September, wages and salaries soared 4.2%, also a record gain. But the government also reported Friday that prices increased 4.4% in September from year earlier. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, inflation was 3.6% in the past year."

heard reporting on marketplace last week that wage increases are going hand in hand with productivity increases so you're not looking at a structural increase in inflation from wages.  used cars are still driving a big chunk of YoY at 24.4%, and new are at 8.7% (data)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

gtfo here with that shit. you can't have trillion dollar companies without billionaires? the fuck? of all the misinformed things you've said, that's probably tops

@Longhorn_Fan68, I just read today that Microsoft has a $2.44 trillion market cap now. Can you kindly explain how trillion dollar organizations would not create billionaires with the way that businesses are created, funded, and owned in American society?

Further, which law do you think could be passed in the short-to-medium term to change there being a necessary outcome of billionaires existing?

Super curious to hear why what I've quoted is misinformed.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

@Longhorn_Fan68, I just read today that Microsoft has a $2.44 trillion market cap now. Can you kindly explain how trillion dollar organizations would not create billionaires with the way that businesses are created, funded, and owned in American society?

Further, which law do you think could be passed in the short-to-medium term to change there being a necessary outcome of billionaires existing?

Super curious to hear why what I've quoted is misinformed.

Negged. You should stop asking really stupid questions. You clearly aren’t sincere and your arguments are made in bad faith. And no I’m not going to bother to explain it to you why that is. You should have never been let out of purgatory. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Negged. You should stop asking really stupid questions. You clearly aren’t sincere and your arguments are made in bad faith. And no I’m not going to bother to explain it to you why that is. 

1) Why is the question stupid given his initial response?

2) What is there to explain? I'm asking the question to get this guy to self-discover that he's the dolt in this relationship and, further, he should really dial back his confidence in his own thinking because the Dunning Kruger is strong with him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

1) Why is the question stupid given his initial response?

2) What is there to explain? I'm asking the question to get this guy to self-discover that he's the dolt in this relationship and, further, he should really dial back his confidence in his own thinking because the Dunning Kruger is strong with him.

You simply never run out of questions do you?  So many questions. Where to find the answers? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You simply never run out of questions do you?  So many questions. Where to find the answers? 
 

At least when I am asked leading or loaded questions, I deign to answer them. 

Funny how you and longhorn_fan resort to "I can't even explain or don't want to spend the time to respond" when you are obviously wrong.

Not being able to admit when you are wrong is a character flaw and negative trait, FYI.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mchookem said:

ffs can the charts and economic theory discussion please find their own thread? Biden has been mentioned like twice in the last three pages. 

this thread is for Biden news and Satoshi's lame 'gotcha!' stories.

It's not really charts and economic theory as much as it is pointless shit flinging. It's the CR way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mchookem said:

ffs can the charts and economic theory discussion please find their own thread? Biden has been mentioned like twice in the last three pages. 

this thread is for Biden news and Satoshi's lame 'gotcha!' stories.

I read about Biden meeting with the Pope; are DaVinci Code-style conspiracy theories okay? jk jk

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back more on the Biden topic, he finally announced a director for the Patent and Trademark Office, Kathi Vidal.  Private practice lawyer, not identified with one side or the other in the "patent wars" that are quietly going on. https://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/professionals/vidal-kathi.html

Surprisingly, somehow or other, Trump came up with a really good PTO Director.  One of the best we've had in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I thought DonkeyDick was banned? What the hell happened?

right?

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Negged. You should stop asking really stupid questions. You clearly aren’t sincere and your arguments are made in bad faith. And no I’m not going to bother to explain it to you why that is. You should have never been let out of purgatory. 

fucking seriously. back to the hole you go, dickhead. maybe stop and think about why you're about to be crowdsourced - twice - or tell your troll farm contractor this site is bunk. We're on to you. Head over to the Texags, They got whatcha need, eh, @DonkeyCigars

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

right?

fucking seriously. back to the hole you go, dickhead. maybe stop and think about why you're about to be crowdsourced - twice - or tell your troll farm contractor this site is bunk. We're on to you. Head over to the Texags, They got whatcha need, eh, @DonkeyCigars

Getting called out for being wrong and/or ignorant about how business works = "Waaaahhh! I'm going to try and cancel you!"

I guess I can't help myself but call you out for the pathetic brain that you are, knowing I'll get negged for it because you've made a fool of your like-minded peers by being so stupid, and a price must be paid.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Getting called out for being wrong and/or ignorant about how business works = "Waaaahhh! I'm going to try and cancel you!"

I guess I can't help myself but call you out for the pathetic brain that you are, knowing I'll get negged for it because you've made a fool of your like-minded peers by being so stupid, and a price must be paid.

 

36D04B89-CA12-48AC-8FC1-7296496BF2DF.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

At least when I am asked leading or loaded questions, I deign to answer them. 

Funny how you and longhorn_fan resort to "I can't even explain or don't want to spend the time to respond" when you are obviously wrong.

Not being able to admit when you are wrong is a character flaw and negative trait, FYI.

Your questions were both leading and loaded, which is why I’m not going to bother answering them or explaining them to you. So I’m not gonna “deign” to answer them. 

You are obviously arguing in bad faith now and the next time you land in purgatory I’m gonna help you stay there instead of the other way around because you are a disingenuous troll. Take a page out of GRUhorns playbook and come back later as someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Long NYT article today about how Biden can’t get corporate taxes raised because Dems are impossible morons.  It’s so disheartening to watch them scream about Dotard and the Rs for four years and then just poop their pampers when it comes time to do something about it. 

This is true. But the progressives would fall in line when push comes to shove. The real problem is Manchin/Sinema are not Democrats. Are they bought shills? I don’t know. But I do know they’re not Democrats. So the Dems really don’t have a majority. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Long NYT article today about how Biden can’t get corporate taxes raised because Dems are impossible morons.  It’s so disheartening to watch them scream about Dotard and the Rs for four years and then just poop their pampers when it comes time to do something about it. 

 

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is true. But the progressives would fall in line when push comes to shove. The real problem is Manchin/Sinema are not Democrats. Are they bought shills? I don’t know. But I do know they’re not Democrats. So the Dems really don’t have a majority. 

IMO, the dem leadership needs to clean fucking house. It's been the same slapdick chucklefucks for the last 13 years

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article popped up in my newsfeed about the regarded Let’s Go Brandon crap that’s suddenly become an easy way to identity ‘conservatives’.  Sorry for the wonky link, I use google news with aim of getting information from a broad array of sources and not just swim in the hate of something like Fox News  

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiSGh0dHBzOi8vbmV3cy55YWhvby5jb20vbGV0cy1icmFuZG9uLWJlY2FtZS1jb2RlLWluc3VsdGluZy0wNTA5MTU3MTQuaHRtbNIBUGh0dHBzOi8vbmV3cy55YWhvby5jb20vYW1waHRtbC9sZXRzLWJyYW5kb24tYmVjYW1lLWNvZGUtaW5zdWx0aW5nLTA1MDkxNTcxNC5odG1s?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Edited by Homercles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Billionaires SHOULD pay more into the system. The taxpayer has been subsidizing them not paying their workforce a fair wage for ages.

Nothing you say will convince Satoshi, Donkey, or Incred because they are pieces of shit. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stole my thunder and they had to deal with Murkowski and Collins screwing things up all the time. 

I’m not sure I’d say that Murkowski and Collins screwed things up. At the end of the day they pretty much fell in line.

But they were often very concerned.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...