SSOTT

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

I'm with you, and sort of agree with that link, mostly:

Consider, oh, David Brooks. His conservatism, of Sam’s Club affectation, fiscal conservatism, tepid social liberalism, and genial trolling of center-leftists at Davos — whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Brooks?

Or Ross Douthat. He is sporadically interesting, often infuriating, but above all, pretty idiosyncratic. His socially conservative “reformicon” thing — whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Douthat?

Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss are a familiar type of glib contrarian. Their opposition to Trump has given them undue credibility among Washington lefties, whom they relentlessly (and boringly) troll. But whom are they speaking for?

I'd rather state this as there are very few real conservatives, most just lie and call themselves that in an attempt to absorb the legitimacy that people like WFBjr created.

And certainly no Trumpers are conservatives ... truthfully Trump is simply a media prima donna in a constant state of using whatever he's doing that day to generate press ... and he's excellent at that: generating media attention.

Unfortunately that's the only thing Trump is good at and he does it at the expense of every other thing including his family, friends, and many times himself. He's the king of wing.

Trump's policy ideas do, however, have a historical basis, just one that's been discredited for 300 years, Mercantilism: put up a wall around your castle (which Trump literally wants to do), hoard gold (again, he literally wants to do this), and screw your trade partners because it's a zero sum game. (again, Trump's actual policy idea) This was basically the 1600s economy: win, while others lose.

This mentality led to horrible wars, genocide, and ultimately the holocaust.

The change in thinking began with Adam Smith in the mid 1700s (and the "invisible hand") which basically posited that open trade created a win-win rising tide that lifted all boats. The labor and capital didn't have to fight because a country could create a "virtuous circle" of wealth creation based on trade that would enrich everyone (instead of one person's win at cost of another's loss).

That's why Adam Smith's revolutionary book was called "Wealth of Nations", not "My Nation's Wealth is Your Nation's Loss"

Conservatism is literally founded on Adam Smith's notion of a rising tide of wealth.

Trump is a neo-mercantilist, literally the opposite of a conservative, and a throwback to the 1700s mining economy.

well said.

in fact, i think on a thread now deleted i once said the same thing

I'm still waiting for the GOP to grow a set of balls and stand up to anything he does with something stronger than 'expressing concern'. I feel I will be waiting for a long time on that front.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by bradleym

These are projections, and I think the point is that Berkshire Hathaway will benefit in 2018 to the tune of 50% of its 2017 profit -- don't know if true, but that is the assertion.

The pie chart represents the 'amount of tax benefit' that goes to those groups, NOT the percentage of population in those groups.

Everyone received approximately the same % tax reduction. Of course those that have higher wages have a bigger $, but it's the same/similar %. I see what he was saying there now though.

I would not say that Berkshire is receiving its profit from the government...I would say that Berkshire is not giving the government as much of their money as they did in the past...it is not the governments money.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

Everyone received approximately the same % tax reduction. Of course those that have higher wages have a bigger $, but it's the same/similar %. I see what he was saying there now though.

I would not say that Berkshire is receiving its profit from the government...I would say that Berkshire is not giving the government as much of their money as they did in the past...it is not the governments money.

This is where we may have a fundamental disagreement.

I believe in paying your own way, carrying your own water, baiting your own hook, and many other metaphors. At the end of the day, that's what taxes are: to pay our own way, we all have to pay 100% of the taxes that it takes to do all of administration of our country.

Now, if there are inefficiencies / mismanagement in those areas, that's a separate topic, just like it would be in a restaurant we dine at ... Maybe the bill could be cheaper if the establishment was better run, but for the here and now, the bill is the bill and you agreed to pay the bill when you sat down to eat.

In short, it's a little bitch move to use services and then underpay for them when the bill comes.

That's what the "tax cut" is: It's like if every time you go out to eat you add 20% of the bill to your kids and then claim that you're, "just paying less of the bill because it's not the restaurant's money" and then also forgetting to mention that you billed your kids for the difference.

The tax cut is the ultimate little bitch move: it charges kids for YOUR bill.

In the case of Buffet, 50% of his 2017 profits will be paid for by your kids and their friends.

So, yeah, it's not the government's money Buffet is taking, it's your kid's ... but only because a Republican Congress and Trump are forcing him to.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

This is where we may have a fundamental disagreement.

I believe in paying your own way, carrying your own water, baiting your own hook, and many other metaphors. At the end of the day, that's what taxes are: to pay our own way, we all have to pay 100% of the taxes that it takes to do all of administration of our country.

Now, if there are inefficiencies / mismanagement in those areas, that's a separate topic, just like it would be in a restaurant we dine at ... Maybe the bill could be cheaper if the establishment was better run, but for the here and now, the bill is the bill and you agreed to pay the bill when you sat down to eat.

In short, it's a little bitch move to use services and then underpay for them when the bill comes.

That's what the "tax cut" is.

It underpays for services rendered, but in an even bigger dick move than can possible be imagined: it actually forces your kids to pay part of the bill later.

It's like if every time you go out to eat you add 20% of the bill to your kids and then claim that you're, "just paying less of the bill because it's not the restaurants money" and then also forgetting to mention that you billed your kids.

The tax cut is the ultimate little bitch move: it charges kids for YOUR bill.

In the case of Buffet, 50% of his 2017 profits will be paid for by your kids and their friends.

So, yeah, it's not the government's money Buffet is taking, it's your kid's.

BUT, if the services are reduced, as they should be, your bill should be cheaper. This is called setting the budget.

If I come in and tell you I have $10 for lunch to spend and you serve me $30 lobster and steak lunch, that's on you. As of the government knows how much we are going to spend on lunch.

[bradleym]

But you keep insisting on lobster & steak, so why not pay for it?

Which services are you going to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Defense? Almost anything else is in the noise..

Your POV seems to assume you 'made your money' in a vacuum, where government had no beneficial effect -- education, roads, legal recourse, clean water, stable electricity, etc., ad infinitum. From such a perspective it is easy to say 'not the governments money', but to someone who is evaluating the full picture it appears quite differently.

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

BUT, if the services are reduced, as they should be, your bill should be cheaper. This is called setting the budget.

If I come in and tell you I have $10 for lunch to spend and you serve me $30 lobster and steak lunch, that's on you. As of the government knows how much we are going to spend on lunch.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by bradleym

But you keep insisting on lobster & steak, so why not pay for it?

Which services are you going to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Defense? Almost anything else is in the noise..

Your POV seems to assume you 'made your money' in a vacuum, where government had no beneficial effect -- education, roads, legal recourse, clean water, stable electricity, etc., ad infinitum. From such a perspective it is easy to say 'not the governments money', but to someone who is evaluating the full picture it appears quite differently.

I didn't insist on steak and lobster, I told you I had $10 to spend...you served it to me anyway. Why would I pay?

Yup..."I didn't build that"

[Lups]

I hit the absolute rock bottom today.

I don't want to pay a high interest loan for the house and my bank wanted a 1% marginal plus the euribor (0.0000%) for the loan.

I decided that I need an other bank so went to get a second opinion. I want as high percentage lent as possible since money is cheap now as possible and I need to decrease my assets/ debt ratio.


So off to a bank I went. I laid down out financials, gave them the specs of the house and the condo I would put down as a collateral. My ask was the whole house worth, plus some for the condo. Basically the maximum with you can borrow here which is 75% of the value.

I spent two hours explaining why I wanted to do in such way and...

Then I realized I was trying to save 290 euros per month and if i worked the usual 7.5 hours per day, 22 days a month...

I was trying to cut the marginal from 1% (7000 a year) to 0.5% (3500) which means I was sitting there for two hours and if the idiot would've understood what I was looking for I would've saved in those two hours 3.2 euros.

At that point I walked out. For sure the bank teller was not the sharpest pen in the box but WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME????!

I think I'm okay with the 1% total marginal and I'm going to try to write off as company expenses the 3.4 euros I did that all for.

If I get caught for attempting to bend the rules to avoid taxes for that sum, I expect to be represented for free by my Canadian lawyer who has been handsomely paid in beer in advance.

I'm going to enjoy an other beer now (one costs 3.87 euros, so I'm spending like 5hours worth here!) so if the math didn't make sense, it's because I tried to edit my stupidity out from the post and my dyslexia is in high gear tonight.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

BUT, if the services are reduced, as they should be, your bill should be cheaper. This is called setting the budget.

And that's just it: SERVICES AREN'T REDUCED, which is why it was a little bitch move. Rather than take on entitlements (social security, medicare, etc,) and about a zillion other things to reduce, Republicans decided to borrow the money to cover the "cut" without reducing shit, despite owning all 3 branches of government.

In short, the Republicans are freeloaders: they paid for a cut in price today by borrowing from children.

It is literally like you deciding you want to eat at the steakhouse every Friday, but you can't afford the prices, so you tell the restaurant to cut all the prices by 20% and send the bill for the difference to your kids 10 years from now.

And not only did Republicans send the bill to kids, but 85% of spend went to businesses!

I don't think anyone could design more dishonorable fiscal policy than stealing $1.2T from kids 10 years from now and giving it to corporate balance sheets today.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

And that's just it: SERVICES AREN'T REDUCED, which is why it was a little bitch move. Rather than take on entitlements (social security, medicare, etc,) and about a zillion other things to reduce, Republicans decided to borrow the money to cover the "cut".

In short, the Republicans are freeloaders: they paid for a cut in price today by borrowing from children.

It is literally like you deciding you want to eat at the steakhouse every Friday, but you can't afford the prices, so you tell the restaurant to cut all the prices by 20% and send the bill for the difference to your kids 10 years from now.

And not only did Republicans send the bill to kids, but 85% of spend went to businesses!

I don't think anyone could design more dishonorable fiscal policy than stealing $1.2T from kids and giving to corporate balance sheets.

I am not one for the borrowing aspect of it. Services need to be cut. And when I say services I don't mean social security or Medicare...

[bradleym]

ah, but you did insist and you don't even know it.

guess we'll agree to disagree -- different values.

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

I didn't insist on steak and lobster, I told you I had $10 to spend...you served it to me anyway. Why would I pay?

Yup..."I didn't build that"

[bradleym]

What do you mean then? Defense?

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

I am not one for the borrowing aspect of it. Services need to be cut. And when I say services I don't mean social security or Medicare...

[Lups]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

And that's just it: SERVICES AREN'T REDUCED, which is why it was a little bitch move. Rather than take on entitlements (social security, medicare, etc,) and about a zillion other things to reduce, Republicans decided to borrow the money to cover the "cut".

In short, the Republicans are freeloaders: they paid for a cut in price today by borrowing from children.

It is literally like you deciding you want to eat at the steakhouse every Friday, but you can't afford the prices, so you tell the restaurant to cut all the prices by 20% and send the bill for the difference to your kids 10 years from now.

And not only did Republicans send the bill to kids, but 85% of spend went to businesses!

I don't think anyone could design more dishonorable fiscal policy than stealing $1.2T from kids 10 years from now and giving it to corporate balance sheets today.

I honestly don't get that math, but as written above I actually go far for a few cents. In my view you can't take those programs away, you need to make sure more people are contributing to them and more to them.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by bradleym

ah, but you did insist and you don't even know it.

guess we'll agree to disagree -- different values.

I have $10 for your lunch special...if that includes steak and lobster, then bring that shit on!

I didn't insist on anything. And if you think that it puts you at a higher level of "values" then I don't know what to think...I would be happy with a burger, fry and water...they chose the menu and put the price in it, not me.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by bradleym

What do you mean then? Defense?

Wasn't that the whole diplomacy thing you were doing under Obama? I think you had less high cost wars ready to boil over with that shit but you looked weak.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

I am not one for the borrowing aspect of it. Services need to be cut. And when I say services I don't mean social security or Medicare...

Yeah, but everything except entitlements is small ball.

It's like trying cut your household budget by ignoring the M cars and vacation properties, but taking a principled stand against name-brand toilet paper.

We need administrators with balls to get shit done, not pontificating pussies who steal from children.



Seriously. Look at the smile on that guy's face.

[Lups]

I still can't believe I did that today.

For sure I usually do abt 1-2 months of work (I have abt 10 hours in a day for work) before a transaction and my portfolio is divided in three branches but for a simple home loan the hubby also signs up for, I'd rather free up a condo for collateral and then save tons and the epic saving in loaning cost is: A cup of coffee, 3 times a day.

I know I'm tight with money and I know I'm completely pathetic with spending less of my spouses money but 1.5 beers in and I have to admit that this all was pathetic.

Well, they ask at the form what do you do for a living and how do you exactly explain that you're lazy and just a stay at home mom with no picture of a salary income of the household? I earn by not earning basically.

2 beers and now I really want to save the money again.apparently I have show off.

A new level of Lups pathetic has been reached. A family home can't be tied to my usual marginal.

[bradleym]

You live here, use the postal service, expect the police to turn up when called, your plane to be routed safely, all that sort of thing -- so yes, you do insist.

Furthermore, you reap the social benefits of both SS and Medicare whether you are a direct beneficiary or not -- so yes, you do insist.

If you really wanted burger & fries (metaphorically) you'd go live in South Sudan -- taxes are super low!

I don't value my values over yours -- they just might be different ones, that's all.

Originally Posted by Kidscollege$

I have $10 for your lunch special...if that includes steak and lobster, then bring that shit on!

I didn't insist on anything. And if you think that it puts you at a higher level of "values" then I don't know what to think...I would be happy with a burger, fry and water...they chose the menu and put the price in it, not me.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by bradleym

You live here, use the postal service, expect the police to turn up when called, your plane to be routed safely, all that sort of thing -- so yes, you do insist.

Furthermore, you reap the social benefits of both SS and Medicare whether you are a direct beneficiary or not -- so yes, you do insist.

If you really wanted burger & fries (metaphorically) you'd go live in South Sudan -- taxes are super low!

I don't value my values over yours -- they just might be different ones, that's all.

Postal service? Paid for by stamp or postage...

Police? Paid for by my local property/sales tax...

Roads? Paid for gas tax...

Air traffic controllers? Paid for by taxes on the air travelers...

Social Security? I and my employer paid into that, about 14% of my wages...damn straight I am going to benefit from it

Medicare? I too paid for that every single paycheck

These are all items outside of the federal income tax collected.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by bradleym

You live here, use the postal service, expect the police to turn up when called, your plane to be routed safely, all that sort of thing -- so yes, you do insist.

Furthermore, you reap the social benefits of both SS and Medicare whether you are a direct beneficiary or not -- so yes, you do insist.

If you really wanted burger & fries (metaphorically) you'd go live in South Sudan -- taxes are super low!

I don't value my values over yours -- they just might be different ones, that's all.

Lol man, they've already paid up so cutting them off is easy.

I don't know how much kidsC actually likes the idea of cutting in the end. We all will be living with our moms and mother inlaws if those get cut.

[bradleym]

Lol, people talk about cutting, but then never do. Either they cannot stomach the political price, or they find that there actually is plenty of value.

We've done this how many times now, incidentally under the power of the so-called 'limited government' party? Reagan, Bush II, now Twump? So far, 0 for 2 on beneficial outcomes, not expecting this new iteration to play out any better.

Originally Posted by Lups

Lol man, they've already paid up so cutting them off is easy.

I don't know how much kidsC actually likes the idea of cutting in the end. We all will be living with our moms and mother inlaws if those get cut.

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by bradleym

Lol, people talk about cutting, but then never do. Either they cannot stomach the political price, or they find that there actually is plenty of value.

We've done this how many times now, incidentally under the power of the so-called 'limited government' party? Reagan, Bush II, now Twump? So far, 0 for 2 on beneficial outcomes, not expecting this new iteration to play out any better.

I am already seeing the benefit of his deregulation which cuts "services" required by some agencies...

[Kidscollege$]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Yeah, but everything except entitlements is small ball.

It's like trying cut your household budget by ignoring the M cars and vacation properties, but taking a principled stand against name-brand toilet paper.

We need administrators with balls to get shit done, not pontificating pussies who steal from children.



Seriously. Look at the smile on that guy's face.

Come on man! Don't go cheap in the ass wipe material!