Printable View
Here's a Wall Street job creator, trying to make an easy billion by shorting a stock to zero (bankrupting a company). Some would have us believe such people are paying too much tax on their (cough) hard earned money.
Herbalife down 6. 5% as Ackman says he'll deal deathblow
[URL]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440544]Here's a Wall Street job creator, trying to make an easy billion by shorting a stock to zero (bankrupting a company). Some would have us believe such people are paying too much tax on their (cough) hard earned money.
Herbalife down 6. 5% as Ackman says he'll deal deathblow
[URL]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124[/URL][/QUOTE]Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
[b]But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company.[/b] Please see [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440545]Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
[b]But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company.[/b] Please see [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.[/QUOTE]Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;440551]Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.[/QUOTE]Progressives are concerned about the individual as much as anyone else. Progressive policies may 'hurt' some individuals by limiting some of their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the same and / or other individuals also benefit when certain freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit outweighs the harm. Ultimately it's all about the individual.
Anyone who really believes the only legitimate role of government is to protect individual rights is living in an ideological fantasyland. The role of government is determined by the people, and very few people (including Conservatives) would actually assign it such a ridiculously narrow scope.
[QUOTE=DonB;440551]Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.
Don B.[/QUOTE]There are always favors for sale, and there is always somebody selling out. I think you have live long enough to know that by now.
In a complex and complicated modern world, you better believe the government has more than that one task. It's just not you and your horse, and your watering hole.
[QUOTE=Esten;440559]Progressives are concerned about the individual as much as anyone else. Progressive policies may 'hurt' some individuals by limiting some of their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the same and / or other individuals also benefit when certain freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit outweighs the harm. Ultimately it's all about the individual.[/QUOTE][I][b]Translation:[/b][/I]
Progressives are concerned [STRIKE] about the individual as much as anyone[/STRIKE] more about themselves than anyone else. Progressive policies [STRIKE]may[/STRIKE] will 'hurt' [STRIKE]some[/STRIKE] all individuals by [STRIKE] limiting some[/STRIKE] taking all their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the [STRIKE] same and / or other individuals also[/STRIKE] progressives will benefit when [STRIKE] certain[/STRIKE] freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit to progressives outweighs the harm to individuals. Ultimately it's all about [STRIKE]the individual[/STRIKE] power over the people.
[QUOTE=Esten;440559]Anyone who really believes the only legitimate role of government is to protect individual rights is living in an ideological fantasyland. The role of government is determined by the people, and very few people (including Conservatives) would actually assign it such a ridiculously narrow scope.[/QUOTE]Like it or not, it's the role our Founding Fathers intended for the federal government. They envisioned a much broader scope of power for state governments, they very much opposed big federal government.
The world guys like Esten, Rev BS and their ilk envision will demand unctuous loyalty, any hint of perfidy will be dealt with in a manner reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. Progressives are nothing more than a cult built on propaganda and intent on enslaving the world in order to satisfy their hunger for power. What kind of a place will the world be once they complete their version of ethnic cleansing.
I never thought I would see the day that Americans would openly call for restricting the individual rights of other Americans in order to give more power the federal government. To me this is akin to just handing a mugger your billfold and then slitting your own throat.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440560]There are always favors for sale, and there is always somebody selling out. I think you have live long enough to know that by now.
In a complex and complicated modern world, you better believe the government has more than that one task. It's just not you and your horse, and your watering hole.[/QUOTE]Just what is government's task?
[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/[/URL]
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;440564]Just what is government's task?
[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/[/URL]
Don B.[/QUOTE]Why don't you tell us about your time in the American gulags? And how of much your life has been violated by the majority rule.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440563]
Like it or not, it's the role our Founding Fathers intended for the federal government. They envisioned a much broader scope of power for state governments, they very much opposed big federal government.
The world guys like Esten, Rev BS and their ilk envision will demand unctuous loyalty, any hint of perfidy will be dealt with in a manner reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. Progressives are nothing more than a cult built on propaganda and intent on enslaving the world in order to satisfy their hunger for power. What kind of a place will the world be once they complete their version of ethnic cleansing.
I never thought I would see the day that Americans would openly call for restricting the individual rights of other Americans in order to give more power the federal government. To me this is akin to just handing a mugger your billfold and then slitting your own throat.[/QUOTE]So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?
The world is evolving every second. Globalization brought on by technology has brought transformation everywhere. Wealth & money is being distributed across the globe. There is no turning back the clock.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440570]So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?[/QUOTE]I think Punter was joking. It's how they deal with the frustration of being unable to effectively argue their positions.
But yeah, that was a piece of work. Even stranger is that I doubt not a single one of these guys even supports the extremely narrow role of government they appear to be promoting. To support such a narrow role, they'd have to support the cessation of public works (roads, bridges, traffic lights, water supply, sewage, parks, beaches, etc), public transportation, public schools, police, firemen, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air and water, safe food and medication, and on and on and on. But hey, your rights would be protected!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440545]Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
[b]But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company.[/b] Please see [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.[/QUOTE]It's all about policy Tiny. And it is clear what political party is more likely to tax, regulate, and reign in Wall Street.
I see you have invoked the classic right wing tactic to link Democrats to Wall Street when Wall Street looks bad. That's nothing more than a slippery diversion to a completely separate discussion. I could point out that Ackman isn't a Democrat because he voted for Romney, or Paul Ryan's private dinners with hedge fund managers, etc. But really what's the point. For obvious reasons both parties would like Wall Street's support, and Wall Street would like political support. This is a separate discussion from the far more important one, of what the parties are willing to do about Wall Street. Schumer is not my favorite politician, but he does support the Buffett Rule. And most Republicans don't. Remember, they signed a pledge to lobbyists (not the American people), to never raise taxes, which means to never address the absurd tax laws and loopholes that benefit the top 1%.
I see Ackman flamed out, but on the other side, Icahn made $234 million in one day on his stake in Herbalife. That's basically free money for Icahn, but when he cashes out he won't likely use his profits to create jobs, rather just play again in the Wall Street casino. Beyond some threshold (say 1 M), such monster profits should be taxed at much higher rates.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] I could point out that Ackman isn't a Democrat because he voted for Romney[/QUOTE]I disagree. Look at the pattern of Ackman's donations during the election cycles.
2014 - 18 to Democrats, 1 negative donation to Romney (Romney sent money back to him?
2012 - 8 to Democrats, 1 large donation to Romney.
2010 -- 22, all to Democrats.
2008 - 17, all to Democrats, including Obama.
Ackman, like you said, probably did vote for Romney. What Ackman did is indicative of Wall Street. Look at donations by people who work at places like Goldman Sachs. Historically they've predominantly donated to Democrats. But in 2012 there was a combination of factors. Many viewed Obama as incompetent. Others figured Romney, who benefited greatly from carried interest and who was a person many on Wall Street could identify with because of his experience with Bain capital, figured he'd be better for Wall Street or better for the country, or better for both. And, to provide some credit to your man, Obama has not been as pliable in the hands of Wall Street lobbyists as some of his Democrat colleagues. He's been more like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, in a bad way, bailing out the stockholders and bondholders in the banks after the recession, while now imposing fines on banks, particularly the foreign ones, all out of proportion to their infractions.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577]And it is clear what political party is more likely to tax, regulate, and reign in Wall Street.[/QUOTE]Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street. As to regulation, both parties suck. Simple requirements, like, say, tangible book value be a minimum of 8% to 10% of assets for financial institutions, are the solution. That combined with regulators who do their jobs and who aren't hamstrung by Congressmen who insist on things like loans to people who can't pay them back.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] Beyond some threshold (say 1 M), such monster profits should be taxed at much higher rates.[/QUOTE] I would agree with you that hedge fund managers should not get special favors like carried interest. However, from your past posts, you intend this as a general statement, not to be applied just to fund managers and their special privileges. You want to take capital away from those who use it best and allocate it to government instead. That's the progressive solution: [URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] Schumer is not my favorite politician, but he does support the Buffett Rule.[/QUOTE]
Get him in a back room and see what he does. When he and Pelosi saw the writing on the wall, that Obama was going to raise rates, they tried to make sure their wealthy friends and donors making up to $1 million a year wouldn't be affected. Again, I have to give your man Obama points for being less of a hypocrite than his Democrat colleagues.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577]Remember, they signed a pledge to lobbyists (not the American people), to never raise taxes, which means to never address the absurd tax laws and loopholes that benefit the top 1%.[/QUOTE]Horse shit. First a number of Republicans would like to make the income tax system fairer and more efficient by simplifying the rules, eliminating loopholes, and bringing rates down. Some Democrats too, like Max Baucus. Obama, Harry and Nancy will have none of that though. Harry and Nancy realize cutting out special privileges reduces their power. Obama, like you, believes tax rates should be higher, not lower. As to the special loopholes benefitting the top 1%, that’s also horse shit. At the federal level, the USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440570]So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?
The world is evolving every second. Globalization brought on by technology has brought transformation everywhere. Wealth & money is being distributed across the globe. There is no turning back the clock.[/QUOTE]Money has always been distributed across the globe, it's the stealing and redistribution for political gain that bothers me.
No one is suggesting we go back to square one, but the ship is listing way to far to the left, we need to right the ship and reset our course before we capsizes.
As for taking out the trash, I will be very happy to help the American people start taking out the trash in November.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]I think Punter was joking.[/QUOTE]Nope not joking, exaggerating yes, but not joking. Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]But yeah, that was a piece of work. Even stranger is that I doubt not a single one of these guys even supports the extremely narrow role of government they appear to be promoting. To support such a narrow role, they'd have to support the cessation of public works (roads, bridges, traffic lights, water supply, sewage, parks, beaches, etc), public transportation, public schools, police, firemen, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air and water, safe food and medication, and on and on and on. But hey, your rights would be protected![/QUOTE]That's absurd, I [B]buy[/B] my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned [U]state regulated[/U] utilities, I [B]buy[/B] my water from a municipally-owned utility, fire protection is provided by volunteer and local city and county fire departments. Police protection is provided by city, county, and state governments, federal law enforcement only addresses crimes that violate federal laws. And we don't need a federal police force, as a matter of fact we have to much federal intervention in local law enforcement already, which has lead to the militarization of local law enforcement agency that we're seeing today. Our school systems are run by local school boards not the federal government, again federal intervention has led to the disastrous public school system we have today. Almost all of what you named off is owned by someone other than the federal government and most of what the fed does control should be turned over to the states. The primary function of the federal government should be interstate commerce and defense.
The idea that the federal government should extract money from the people in the form of taxes and then use that same money as a weapon to gain compliance with the political whims of the day whilst lining the pockets of their political cronies is ludicrous at best. Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that we could not have the above mentioned services without the federal government, if anything the fed makes these services more costly and less efficient. There is a role for the federal government but it should be very limited.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]I think Punter was joking. It's how they deal with the frustration of being unable to effectively argue their positions.[/QUOTE]A Freudian slip more likely.