If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   America should charge bravely over the fiscal cliff like Wile E. Coyote chasing the road runner   (ideas.time.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, The American Prospect  
•       •       •

6146 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 09:56:34 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So...I point out you use the wrong set of numbers, and from that you can infer my feelings on raising revenue versus decreasing spending?


That comment was more geared to cfletch13, but your points exeplify the failure to understand even the manitude of the actions you propose, especially when compared to the problem that we face. And then you claim that there is a math failure. Lol.

While I am in favor of increasing taxes, I also realize that this is only about 1/4 of the problem we currently face. Pretending that beating up on the rich will solve our problems is dumb. It may make some of the liberals happy, but it does not solve our long term problems.
 
2012-11-13 09:57:57 AM

the_immoral_minority: We just blew thru 2,400 Billion in debt in 15 months, getting 80 Billion from not renewing the Bush cuts isn't going to do squat

[t.qkme.me image 310x232]


i know you're trolling, but...

there's no such thing as an obamaphone.
 
2012-11-13 09:57:57 AM

ghall3: HeadLever: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So he suggests raising the capital gains tax rate

That number is even less significant. Raising the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent (Obama's plan) will raise an additional $3.6 billion per year. If the Bush tax cuts were small potatoes, this is small peas. Combine the two items an you have now cut our deficit to $1.033Trillion.

It is amusing to watch the partisan hacks flail over the notion that if we could just only tax the rich, all of our debt problems would go away.

/Math fail indeed

We need to start somewhere...


I'll agree with that. That is why I support it. However, don't pretend that it is going to solve our problems.

/WWIkeD?
 
2012-11-13 09:58:31 AM

HeadLever: Pretending that beating up on the rich poor will solve our problems is dumb and has so far gotten us here.

 
2012-11-13 10:01:41 AM
by the way. anybody assigning the meaningless misnomers of "liberal" and "conservative" to a discussion about math is selling something besides solutions. So far, dime store flag waving for the prepackaged, abstruse and largely self-serving economic monkey snot that is pseudo-political agendas has gotten us here.
 
2012-11-13 10:03:03 AM

LovingTeacher: Thunderpipes: We do it now or we dot it much, much harder later on.

We really need a shock to get back to reality. Libs don't understand what interest is and that is scary.

350 billion in interest payments on the debt right now. Will be 500 billion or so at the end of Obama's second term. From there is increases almost exponentially. These are CBO optimistic numbers as well, not scaredy cat stuff.

Would liberals take out a mortgage knowing the principal would grow 8-10% a year, while their salary can't even make the interest payments to begin with? That is how batcrap retarded this country is acting under Democratic rule. You cannot defend or even argue that, so you just attack anyone for pointing it out. Dumb.

The only arguments I have with what you said are bolded.
1. it is increasing exponentially, that's what interest does.
2. not all liberals are fiscally irresposible, there are those of us who want to get this thing under control
3. This country has acted the same "batcrap retarded" way under both parties since I started paying attention when Ronnie was prez, Bush II was no fiscally restrained, small government, not trampling people's constitutional rights conservative. So you can just stop with the partisanship if you want to get anything done.


I was not happy with deficits under Bush either. But..... pretty large difference. Remember, Bush was getting hammered by liberals for economic numbers during his reelection bid, and those numbers would be joyful right now. We still had growth during the Bush years. Like it or not, Bush admin had nothing to do with the housing crisis, that started earlier and was not some evil Republican deal.

Now how do we fix this? We need to get a 500 billion or more surplus, next year. We then need to increase slightly and start paying down the debt. If we can't start paying it down, we really are finished as we know it, just a matter of time. We piss away 350 billion in interest payments a year, how many of our kids could be put through college, and have all the health care they want with that money alone? My problem with Obama and Democrats, is that they really don't care. At the end of his second term, Obama would have added 10-12 trillion to the national debt. At that point, how do we recover? CBO projections out are even worse. When my kid goes to college, we will be 40 trillion in debt, or more.

When do liberals start to worry? When we spend 1 trillion in interest on the debt? 2 trillion? When debt to GDP is 150%, 200%? Do people really think we can just increase taxes on the rich? Even now, all of Obama's plans won't even dent the deficit, let alone the debt, and will result in slower growth.

We need a plan, all libs are giving us is ideology and attacks.
 
2012-11-13 10:07:41 AM
As far as I can tell, the people shilling for business as usual on the "conservative" side of the aisle have one message. "Look here, motherfu*kers, rich people know about money, duh! It's why their rich! Now shut up and stop pestering them with your *obviously* uninformed opinions!" And, yeah, well, that can go and f*ck itself.
 
2012-11-13 10:08:10 AM

HeadLever: I'll agree with that. That is why I support it. However, don't pretend that it is going to solve our problems.


I hope no one is really so ill-informed to think that raising the taxes on the rich will alone solve our problems...

It's a start but really, we need to let the cuts expire on all income levels (perhaps with a gradual expiration over 5 years or so for the middle and lower class), we also need to reform the tax code so some of these crazy deductions get eliminated and we need to reign in the DoD. That coupled with steady economic growth and the yearly deficit goes away. At least that's my ignorant view of it since I'm no economist...

/Just raising taxes and cutting a bunch of programs won't do it...have we all learned nothing from Europe and how austerity works?
 
2012-11-13 10:09:22 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?

.
You are thinking of the rule that applies to you and me. There is a loophole that allow hedge funds and investment companies to declare the 15% rate for all investments, so high frequency traders like Buffet enjoy the 15% rate all of the time. The current administration refuses to touch this, instead they babel on about how rich you and I are and how you and I must pay more. Closing that loophole on Obama's buddies would raise a whole lot of cash, and possibly even slow down the Buffets and Goldman's of the world. Google "15 capital gains tax for hedge funds"

You are wrong, or at least I'm 99% sure you are wrong. Please provide any citations that support your claims... it will help me tell you why your views/the source are incorrect or, in the remote possibility that I'm wrong, you'll see my shocked face and get an apology.

The 'carried interest' loophole essentially allows fund managers to be taxed on their performance fees on investment funds, in the same manner that the investors gains on the underlying investments are taxed. It is much more common in PE funds, where by nature investments are held for long periods of time (5-7 years).

Example: A fund manager may only put in $1 and get investors to contribute $99 to a fund that makes an investment. Upon realization of a gain on that investment (Say $50), the PE manager not only gets the returns on his dollar (50 cents) but also frequently 20% of the gains of his investors ($9.90). To the extent the gain qualifies for capital gains (held for longer than one year), the carried interest loophole allows the manager to not only treat the 50 cents as capital gains but also the $9.90.

If the gains are short ...


You don't have access to Google?
 
2012-11-13 10:10:54 AM
Yes, we should go over the "fiscal cliff", but we should have done it years ago. The temporary tax measures were temporary for a reason.

Yes, it will cause pain, but no pain no gain.
 
2012-11-13 10:11:12 AM

dsmith42: david_gaithersburg: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?

.
And when Buffet goes on about raising taxes take careful note that he never states that the "carried interest" loophole should be eliminated, that would affect him. Buffet is one of the most evil men on the planet, and Obama has sent billions of our tax dollars his way via funds for the railroad he purchased minutes after Obama was elected in 2008. Yeah, the media did everything in their power to avoid these stories.

Buffett does not use the carried interest loophole because he does not run a hedge fund or a private equity fund. You are thinking of somebody like John Paulson or Mitt Romney. Buffett does benefit from the lower dividend and long term capital gains rates, but he has explicitly called for those to be raised.


No, he does enjoy that loophole. I'm a professional trader that retired once already at the age of 42, I have a slight clue here.
 
2012-11-13 10:12:41 AM

david_gaithersburg: I'm a professional trader


Bookies started most of this mess. I got nothing against gambling, but take it to Harrah's.
 
2012-11-13 10:16:22 AM

Thunderpipes: At the end of his second term, Obama would have added 10-12 trillion to the national debt.


Do you not know where the $1T deficits come from?

The 2008 banking collapse coupled with continually extending the Bush tax cuts because the House won't let anything get done unless those keep getting extended has caused a severe revenue shortfall each year since Obama took office. It really has only about 10% due to unexpected spending (DoD) and 8% other spending, the rest is from the revenue shortfall.

Look at the CBO numbers you like to keep referencing, in 2007 they projected about a $100B surplus in 2012, after the tax cuts got extended in 2009 that projection ended up at more than $600B in the red, economic conditions because of the crash did play into that obviously but this myth that Obama keeps spending way more than we have is just simply not the cause of the enormous deficits.
 
2012-11-13 10:17:45 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?


No, he doesn't realize that, or anything else except HURRRDURR OBAMA BAD!!!!!
 
2012-11-13 10:17:54 AM

bunner: A very arduous process of creating a nationally internal spreadsheet of who owes what, to whom is it owed, under what sort of construct, how much of it is utter horsesh*t (derivatives),


Ok, lesson No. 1 - What is Goverment Debt you may ask - You first need to realize that US Goverment Debt is pure and simple Tresury bonds. Let that sink in for a few moments. No deratives, no stocks, no mutual funds, no commodities, none of that. Pure and simple Treasuries.

Lesson No. 2 - Who invest in these treasury bonds you might ask? Well, the biggest holder of these debt instuments is the Government itself via the SS and Medicare trust funds. They hold about $5 Trilllion of these. Another large holder is the Federal Reserve since they have been buying them by the pallet full in order to keep interest rates low (you may have eard of QE I, II, &III). They have about $1.7 Trillion. The rest is held by private investments, other countries, Pension funds, state and local governments, etc. Who are you going to default on? Pensions? State and Local Goverments? China? Personal Investments?

Lesson no. 3 - Defaulting, even selectively has consequences that will create a surge in interest rates of these debt instruments. Credit ratings will plunge for this country making it more difficult to issue any more treasuries and making the debt we do issue much more expensive. This will cost the taxpayers of this country even more or lend itself to even more debt and interest.

Ok, that is enough for now. Let that sink in for a bit and then come back with something that is not codswallop
 
2012-11-13 10:18:04 AM

bunner: by the way. anybody assigning the meaningless misnomers of "liberal" and "conservative" to a discussion about math is selling something besides solutions. So far, dime store flag waving for the prepackaged, abstruse and largely self-serving economic monkey snot that is pseudo-political agendas has gotten us here.


I always look at things as "the government" doing it, not liberals or conservatives. Strip away the politics and it becomes less like rooting for a sports team.

The government has been spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The government has no plan to get that under control anytime soon.
The government is trying to weasel out of doing what they made themselves commit to a few months ago due to their own inability to come to a consensus.
 
2012-11-13 10:19:54 AM

ghare: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?

No, he doesn't realize that, or anything else except HURRRDURR OBAMA BAD!!!!!


Have some KoolAid and go sit in the corner, adults are speaking here.
 
2012-11-13 10:20:37 AM

ManRay: bunner: by the way. anybody assigning the meaningless misnomers of "liberal" and "conservative" to a discussion about math is selling something besides solutions. So far, dime store flag waving for the prepackaged, abstruse and largely self-serving economic monkey snot that is pseudo-political agendas has gotten us here.

I always look at things as "the government" doing it, not liberals or conservatives. Strip away the politics and it becomes less like rooting for a sports team.

The government has been spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The government has no plan to get that under control anytime soon.
The government is trying to weasel out of doing what they made themselves commit to a few months ago due to their own inability to come to a consensus.



So....GOVERNMENT BAD!!!! DERPITY DERPITY DOO!
 
2012-11-13 10:21:46 AM

HeadLever: Ok, lesson No. 1


HeadLever: Ok, that is enough for now. Let that sink in for a bit and then come back with something that is not codswallop


Give it a rest ElCondescendio. All of the business as usual machinations you're touting as etched in stone means you're the one not paying attention, and I'm all but done entertaining your "GAHD, everybody is sot STUPID" posture. Do what you gotta do.
 
2012-11-13 10:21:56 AM

HeadLever: bunner: JonnyG: How easy would it be to fix all the world's financial problems? Reset everything to zero across the board. That way, profitable ventures will continue and failing ventures will fail. Rich people who deserve to be rich will become rich again. It'll all work out, I swear.

Its' called jubilee and it's pretty much the only thing left to do that isn't band aids, bullsh*t and propping up the con.

Bzzzt. wrong. When you are racking up trillion dollar deficits every year and then default on said debt, you are not going to be suddenly living in a world of rainbows and unicorns. You previous debtors are going to refuse to finance you debt any longer since they got burned and you ability to continue to issue those trillion dollars in deficts/debt are going to be VERY costly.

I can't even imagine what interest rates would be in this type of secenairo.


Everybody is in debt, so I was insinuating that it would apply all across the world. I was also, unfortunately, joking.
 
2012-11-13 10:23:11 AM

bunner: Zeb Hesselgresser: Democratic rule.

You guys... don't know how this - "America" thing works, do you?


HA and you think it works
 
2012-11-13 10:26:11 AM

ghall3: Thunderpipes: At the end of his second term, Obama would have added 10-12 trillion to the national debt.

Do you not know where the $1T deficits come from?

The 2008 banking collapse coupled with continually extending the Bush tax cuts because the House won't let anything get done unless those keep getting extended has caused a severe revenue shortfall each year since Obama took office. It really has only about 10% due to unexpected spending (DoD) and 8% other spending, the rest is from the revenue shortfall.

Look at the CBO numbers you like to keep referencing, in 2007 they projected about a $100B surplus in 2012, after the tax cuts got extended in 2009 that projection ended up at more than $600B in the red, economic conditions because of the crash did play into that obviously but this myth that Obama keeps spending way more than we have is just simply not the cause of the enormous deficits.


Ya, sure. Obamacare is free too. So was the auto bailiout, stimulus, increase in food stamps, massive unemployment increase, kicking SS and medicare issues down the road, punishing business, ya, none of that. Bush tax cuts cost 1 trillion a year, yup.
 
2012-11-13 10:26:33 AM
Lesson No. 1. If you have to cop some Woolworths, FOX news anchor posture of authority to reinforce your ostensibly lofty notions, you just screwed the pooch. Condescension usually means "I'm trying to make your opinion seem irrelevant by sticking my tongue out at you." Adults are talking here. Yeah, sure.
 
2012-11-13 10:28:44 AM
Bush tax cuts "cost" us about 100 billion a year, tops. 6 trillion in 4 years of Obama added to the debt, so get rid of all Bush tax cuts, we may have been at 5.6 trillion added to the debt. Awesome, problem solved!
 
2012-11-13 10:28:53 AM

spentshells: HA and you think it works


Actually, the only thing keeping it from working like in the manual is a pack of hogs who are quite certain that if they get more sh*t than you, by any means, they "win". Nobody wins. You just leave something behind greater than the sum of the parts, fall down trying, or plant your lips on the fattest titty you can find until they cart you out with a toe tag on. Not all that impressive, is it?
 
2012-11-13 10:30:22 AM
Problem we have is our tax base is very narrow. We are plenty progressive enough, that is not an issue. Problem is, fewer people pay, and they make more babies and hold more political power. Until you have everyone chipping in, we cannot fix this.
 
2012-11-13 10:33:17 AM
The fact of the matter is, we value IOUs a lot more than human life. See: War. There's nothing that's going to get repaired around here until the "use people, love things" dictum gets switched around to it's proper and original statement.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:08 AM

ghall3: I hope no one is really so ill-informed to think that raising the taxes on the rich will alone solve our problems...


me too, but then you get this

cfletch13:
OR.... you could just reform the tax code without crashing the economy into the ground, without defaulting on debt payments, and without making your interest burden higher.

/empahsis mine

It's a start but really, we need to let the cuts expire on all income levels (perhaps with a gradual expiration over 5 years or so for the middle and lower class), we also need to reform the tax code so some of these crazy deductions get eliminated and we need to reign in the DoD. That coupled with steady economic growth and the yearly deficit goes away. At least that's my ignorant view of it since I'm no economist...

We are getting closer here but still a little ways off. Here is the math:

1)assume that reforming the tax code, the economy grows back to 'normal' and increasing taxes will get our revenue to GDP back up to where Clinton's boom days were. Let's call it 19% of GDP. That pushes federal tax revenue upward by a tick over 500Billion from where we are now (2.4T to 2.9T) You have effectivly cut the defict from $1.1T down to $600B. However, let's remember that substantially increasing taxes can have a negative impact on growth and that is not taken into account here.

2)assume that you stop the wars and cut DoD by 30%. That combined costs of these are about $656Billion per year (about $75B per year for the wars, rest for DoD buget). The new cost of the DoD would be about $405Billion and you save about $250 Billion here. Again, reducing the DoD spending will have an impact on private buisness and unemplyment ant that is not taken into account here.

These two items (not accounting for the negative feedback) have basically reduced the deficit from the current $1.1T down to $350 Billion, which is pretty much the same as the average during the GWB years.

Items that will be issues coming up in the future include normalization of interest rates will increase the interest obligation we have to pay substantially. Social Security and Medicare costs are also expected to greatly incrase as baby boomers retire and get old.

Overalll there are soutions, but they are not as easy as outlining bullet points on Fark. These decisions will negatively impact American lives. However, for our fiscal health going into the future, these types of decisions are necessary.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:45 AM

ghare: So....GOVERNMENT BAD!!!! DERPITY DERPITY DOO!


Keep that attitude up Slappy. It makes it easier for people to figure out who is taking things seriously.

/in this instance, if you do not understand what the government is doing is working against your interests you are a fool.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:48 AM

Thunderpipes: Ya, sure. Obamacare is free too. So was the auto bailiout, stimulus, increase in food stamps, massive unemployment increase, kicking SS and medicare issues down the road, punishing business, ya, none of that. Bush tax cuts cost 1 trillion a year, yup.


"In January 2009, the CBO forecast 2012 revenues at $3.1 trillion. Today, the CBO expects that this year's revenue will be just $2.5 trillion, a nearly $600 billion difference. That revenue decline accounts for fully 48 percent of the swing from projected surplus to current deficit....With over 90 percent of the 2012 deficit already spoken for-35 percent from events prior to 2009, 48 percent from lower tax revenue, and 8 percent from higher defense spending-that leaves higher nondefense spending responsible for just 9 percent."

Link

And I have rebuttals for most of the rest of your points but...you know what, your mind is made up already so why even bother?

/I sound tired
 
2012-11-13 10:42:45 AM

bunner: Give it a rest ElCondescendio.


So long as you acutally learned something today, I will have considered it 'Mission Accomplished'. I'll be monitoring your post to see if today's lessons have acutally sunk in or if you are going to continue to spout off convienient talking point that have no basis in reality. I'll be issuing you a grade later.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:06 AM

HeadLever: Overalll there are soutions, but they are not as easy as outlining bullet points on Fark. These decisions will negatively impact American lives. However, for our fiscal health going into the future, these types of decisions are necessary.


I agree with all of that, we are stuck with speaking in sweeping generalizations here and really, I'm too lazy to type out extremely long detailed answers or ideas anyway plus no one is actually going to read anything that long so there we have it.

Anyway, I think we are in general agreement about the necessary path forward...
Too bad that means nothing in the grand scheme of things

/I still sound tired...or at least apathetic
 
2012-11-13 10:44:53 AM

ghall3: Thunderpipes: Ya, sure. Obamacare is free too. So was the auto bailiout, stimulus, increase in food stamps, massive unemployment increase, kicking SS and medicare issues down the road, punishing business, ya, none of that. Bush tax cuts cost 1 trillion a year, yup.

"In January 2009, the CBO forecast 2012 revenues at $3.1 trillion. Today, the CBO expects that this year's revenue will be just $2.5 trillion, a nearly $600 billion difference. That revenue decline accounts for fully 48 percent of the swing from projected surplus to current deficit....With over 90 percent of the 2012 deficit already spoken for-35 percent from events prior to 2009, 48 percent from lower tax revenue, and 8 percent from higher defense spending-that leaves higher nondefense spending responsible for just 9 percent."

Link

And I have rebuttals for most of the rest of your points but...you know what, your mind is made up already so why even bother?

/I sound tired


You sound dumb. Lower revenue is not because of the Bush tax cuts. There was this thing called a recession.
 
2012-11-13 10:45:59 AM

HeadLever: So long as you acutally learned something today


Well, my spelling is improving. What don't you get about "give it a rest". You're smarter than me. Your deep seated belief to the contrary costs me nothing but don't wait for me to pick up any pom poms.

HeadLever: I will have considered it 'Mission Accomplished'


Of course you will, snookoums. People with agendas usually arrive at that conclusion with no outside help.

HeadLever: I'll be monitoring your post to see if today's lessons have acutally sunk in or if y


Person of color, I beseech thee. *snort*

HeadLever: I'll be issuing you a grade later


Do you practice talking to your mirror a lot? : )
 
2012-11-13 10:47:13 AM
Actually, you're NOT smarter than me. My typing and editing skills have remained the same, it seems, acutally. : )
 
2012-11-13 10:49:33 AM

Thunderpipes: You sound dumb. Lower revenue is not because of the Bush tax cuts. There was this thing called a recession.


I mention that that was a key driver as well, but thanks for acknowledging that since it is kind of hard to blame that on Obama since it happened in 2008.

So which is it? The recession and reduced government tax collection or spending that caused the deficits?

Or was it actually a combination of both, with the majority of spending increases caused by wars and economic programs that are directly related to either helping the unemployed or attempts to increase economic activity?

Hmm I wonder what the correct answer is?
 
2012-11-13 10:54:20 AM

bunner: What don't you get about "give it a rest".


Because then you opportunity to actually learn something would be greatly diminished. You seem to need all the help you can get.
 
2012-11-13 10:57:11 AM

HeadLever: bunner: What don't you get about "give it a rest".

Because then you opportunity to actually learn something would be greatly diminished. You seem to need all the help you can get.


If I run into somebody who isn't selling dime store, 8th grade, "my mom says I am sooo smart!" arrogance, or you know, actually knows something other than they gleaned from a few cursory swipes at some Econ texts, I'll mention it to them. One more troll and your ridiculous ass goes into the penalty box. Make it a good one, Orato. : )
 
2012-11-13 10:59:22 AM
And it's "your". YOUR opportunity. If you're going to sell yourself as Einstein, it helps if you can spell. No, it atcually does.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:49 AM

bunner: If I run into somebody who isn't selling dime store, 8th grade, "my mom says I am sooo smart!" arrogance, or you know, actually knows something other than they gleaned from a few cursory swipes at some Econ texts, I'll mention it to them. One more troll and your ridiculous ass goes into the penalty box. Make it a good one, Orato. : )


At least you have progressed from dumb economic arguments into personal attacks and threats of placing folks on the ignore list. I'll consider that an improvement.

You are allowed to have your own opionions of others. You own facts are a littlle different matter.
 
2012-11-13 11:05:56 AM
HeadLever: Blah blah, haw I am so smrt, I t0llz0s jo0 haw, oh, I could go on for hours about how soo much smarter i am ...

i2.listal.com
 
2012-11-13 11:06:37 AM
i1057.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-13 11:09:44 AM

bunner: If you're going to sell yourself as Einstein,


Who said I am Einstein? My spelling sucks. Deal with it or put my on ignore.
 
2012-11-13 11:10:20 AM
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-13 11:13:06 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to out the people who just come here to sell piss arrogance and bored-middle-school-kid-in the CS-lab trolling. Seriously. Are you folks just masochists or imbeciles? It really shoots whatever "lofty and unimpeachable truths" you're pretending to sell square in the ass and it usually takes about four posts for you to implode. It's embarrassing.
 
2012-11-13 11:13:25 AM

bunner: Blah blah, haw I am so smrt, I t0llz0s jo0 haw, oh, I could go on for hours about how soo much smarter i am ...


You could always just refute my arguments if you have a specific problem with them. Although, digressing into personal attacks pretty much shows your hand in this regard.
 
2012-11-13 11:19:30 AM

bunner: It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to out the people who just come here to sell piss arrogance and bored-middle-school-kid-in the CS-lab trolling. Seriously. Are you folks just masochists or imbeciles? It really shoots whatever "lofty and unimpeachable truths" you're pretending to sell square in the ass and it usually takes about four posts for you to implode. It's embarrassing.


HeadLever: You could always just refute my arguments if you have a specific problem with them. Although, digressing into personal attacks pretty much shows your hand in this regard.


Well that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast.
 
2012-11-13 11:23:09 AM

david_gaithersburg: dsmith42: david_gaithersburg: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?

.
And when Buffet goes on about raising taxes take careful note that he never states that the "carried interest" loophole should be eliminated, that would affect him. Buffet is one of the most evil men on the planet, and Obama has sent billions of our tax dollars his way via funds for the railroad he purchased minutes after Obama was elected in 2008. Yeah, the media did everything in their power to avoid these stories.

Buffett does not use the carried interest loophole because he does not run a hedge fund or a private equity fund. You are thinking of somebody like John Paulson or Mitt Romney. Buffett does benefit from the lower dividend and long term capital gains rates, but he has explicitly called for those to be raised.

No, he does enjoy that loophole. I'm a professional trader that retired once already at the age of 42, I have a slight clue here.


You may have a clue, but do you have a citation? The only thing I see from Google'ing is that Buffet has publicly campaigned against the exception. And what does your retirement age have to do with anything?
 
2012-11-13 11:23:12 AM
showcaseyouth.com
 
2012-11-13 11:29:01 AM

david_gaithersburg: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: Debeo Summa Credo: david_gaithersburg: The important thing here is that Buffet and all of Obama's hedge fund friends will get to keep their 15% tax rate on investments held for milliseconds.

You do realize that the 15% rate applies only to investments held for at least a year, right?

.
You are thinking of the rule that applies to you and me. There is a loophole that allow hedge funds and investment companies to declare the 15% rate for all investments, so high frequency traders like Buffet enjoy the 15% rate all of the time. The current administration refuses to touch this, instead they babel on about how rich you and I are and how you and I must pay more. Closing that loophole on Obama's buddies would raise a whole lot of cash, and possibly even slow down the Buffets and Goldman's of the world. Google "15 capital gains tax for hedge funds"

You are wrong, or at least I'm 99% sure you are wrong. Please provide any citations that support your claims... it will help me tell you why your views/the source are incorrect or, in the remote possibility that I'm wrong, you'll see my shocked face and get an apology.

The 'carried interest' loophole essentially allows fund managers to be taxed on their performance fees on investment funds, in the same manner that the investors gains on the underlying investments are taxed. It is much more common in PE funds, where by nature investments are held for long periods of time (5-7 years).

Example: A fund manager may only put in $1 and get investors to contribute $99 to a fund that makes an investment. Upon realization of a gain on that investment (Say $50), the PE manager not only gets the returns on his dollar (50 cents) but also frequently 20% of the gains of his investors ($9.90). To the extent the gain qualifies for capital gains (held for longer than one year), the carried interest loophole allows the manager to not only treat the 50 cents as capital gains but also the $9.90.

You don't have access to Google?


I do have access to google and everything I find there supports my understanding of the carried interest loophole and refutes yours. Are you using lycos or something?
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report