The All Things Political Topic - As a Bright Lord bears Beacons of flame.

[Gfted1]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Not the least of which is the complete non-cooperation of the governments of countries that actually have hunger.

I think in this case "food waste" is the food we purchase, but ultimately discard into the trash. For example, I always make 1 Lb of spaghetti at a time but my wife and I eat less than half of that for dinner. Then we each have "leftovers" for lunch the next day, and I still have spaghetti to throw in the garbage. Hell, theres probably 55 gallon trash cans full of food every day in @Hurlsnot school cafeteria.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Such programs exist only to enrich the people who control them. If they happen to actually do some good along the way so much the better but that is just the icing on the cake. The only thing anyone can do about world hunger is to actually give food to a hungry person. Donating money enriches the foundation and enriches the heads of the states in which they operate and little else.

GD I have some good news, this proposed new Capital Gains tax has been bothering me the whole day and I wasnt sure why because lots of things concern me about it. But anyway I did some research and from the link below its not actually only  billionaires being taxed. But the real targeted group is actually better, anyone who earns $100 million a year but for 3 years in a row. But you have to earn $8 million /month or  if one makes US$ 1 billion in annual

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89077/u-s-president-biden-unveils-unrealized-capital-gains-tax-for-billionaires

The people that make $100 million a year  is a very successful group and Im not  what sure exactly who they would be but they can afford this, the CEO of banks like Goldman and JPMorgan earn about $30 million. So even though its unfair and I am very concerned with the future and how this may change but I would like to  believe progressive Democrats will respect the tax benefits and not do this again

But what I still dont understand is how they are going to calculate taxable amounts based on a projection of assets, shares and commodities like gold. Do you understand what they mean because you  cant predict  the value of  these assets  because their value is directly impacted by supply and demand and factors you cant control ?

Maybe its about the value now but the main  point being it will be a selective tax of some wealthy people ...its wrong but not as bad as I thought 

Edited November 1, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

9 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD I have some good news,

doesn't matter. they are all bad. today is billionaires but tomorrow is the guy making $50k a year. politicians suck, because they are politicians and they all lie and they all steal.  tease gd with a conspiracy which suggests a politician is bad and he instant believes, 'cause it doesn't matter if the specific conspiracy is true or not when the conclusion is already a certainty-- they are all bad.

heck, apparently every charitable organization with a goal o' combating world hunger is also part o' the problem. next time some kid with a little orange unicef box shows up and asks for a donation, be like gd and tell the kid to pike off. no way are you and gd gonna fall for such thin veiled villainy, yes?

cartoon character predictable.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

22 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But what I still dont understand is how they are going to calculate taxable amounts based on a projection of assets, shares and commodities like gold.

Pick an asof date and tax you based off that ?

[Guard Dog]

13 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

doesn't matter. they are all bad. today is billionaires but tomorrow is the guy making $50k a year. politicians suck, because they are politicians and they all lie and they all steal.  tease gd with a conspiracy which suggests a politician is bad and he instant believes, 'cause it doesn't matter if the specific conspiracy is true or not when the conclusion is already a certainty-- they are all bad.

heck, apparently every charitable organization with a goal o' combating world hunger is also part o' the problem. next time some kid with a little orange unicef box shows up and asks for a donation, be like gd and tell the kid to pike off. no way are you and gd gonna fall for such thin veiled villainy, yes?

cartoon character predictable.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Is it still a conspiracy theory if it actually turns out to be true? Asking for a friend.

[Guard Dog]

35 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD I have some good news, this proposed new Capital Gains tax has been bothering me the whole day and I wasnt sure why because lots of things concern me about it. But anyway I did some research and from the link below its not actually only  billionaires being taxed. But the real targeted group is actually better, anyone who earns $100 million a year but for 3 years in a row. But you have to earn $8 million /month or  if one makes US$ 1 billion in annual

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/89077/u-s-president-biden-unveils-unrealized-capital-gains-tax-for-billionaires

The people that make $100 million a year  is a very successful group and Im not  what sure exactly who they would be but they can afford this, the CEO of banks like Goldman and JPMorgan earn about $30 million. So even though its unfair and I am very concerned with the future and how this may change but I would like to  believe progressive Democrats will respect the tax benefits and not do this again

But what I still dont understand is how they are going to calculate taxable amounts based on a projection of assets, shares and commodities like gold. Do you understand what they mean because you  cant predict  the value of  these assets  because their value is directly impacted by supply and demand and factors you cant control ?

Maybe its about the value now but the main  point being it will be a selective tax of some wealthy people ...its wrong but not as bad as I thought 

I know Bruce I said all of those things in my original post on it. I still think it’s a stupid idea. Because it is. I also said it’s not something that’s actually happening and looking more and more unlikely that it will happen. It was just a hypothetical discussion.

[Gromnir]

20 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Pick an asof date and tax you based off that ?

doesn't work like that. the value of assets is art as 'posed to science, right up until you sell 'em. the more complex is portfolio, the more improbable it is to determine value. is why we generally don't do such with US taxes. capital gains is the option used 'cause doesn't matter what value you believed were appropriate for the property at 562 maple st. 'cause the selling price were actual $475,000, and you is gonna be taxed based on $475,000.  and look at the past year. during the summer, property were even more inflated in value than is the case today. so let's say the value o' the property is determined "asof" june 20, 2021, but you sell november 1, 2021. if is in Gromnir's neighborhood, that house on maple street were likely worth at least $50k more in june as 'posed to today. doesn't seem fair to be taxed as if the property were worth $525,000 when you were only made $475,000. just to track values o' property o' rich people would require a veritable army o' appraisers.

again, is why the proposed tax is specific limited to marketable assets such as stocks. is also creating the obvious loophole we mentioned earlier 'cause it don't apply to everything else. 

as for @Guard Dog, you don't care if the conspiracy is proven, as were evident with burisma. and yeah, it don't actual matter if the conspiracy is later proven true if you believed specific because it were a conspiracy which suggested politicians is bad. if doesn't make  a difference what is facts or evidence, then yeah is still conspiracy even if eventual facts show the belief to be true. you believe because o' the conclusion and often in spite o' facts.  is a conspiracy theory 'cause is based on assumptions which cannot be disproved and not 'cause o' actual evidence. ends up being correct is inconsequential as to why the conspiracy theory label is appropriate.

and again, you believe is all true because o' conclusion and regardless o' facts, so...

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

doesn't work like that. the value of assets is art as 'posed to science, right up until you sell 'em. the more complex is portfolio, the more improbable it is to determine value. is why we generally don't do such with US taxes. capital gains is the option used 'cause doesn't matter what value you believed were appropriate for the property at 562 maple st. 'cause the selling price were actual $475,000, and you is gonna be taxed based on $475,000.  and look at the past year. during the summer, property were even more inflated in value than is the case today. so let's say the value o' the property is determined "asof" june 20, 2021, but you sell november 1, 2021. if is in Gromnir's neighborhood, that house on maple street were likely worth at least $50k more in june as 'posed to today. doesn't seem fair to be taxed as if the property were worth $525,000 when you were only made $475,000. just to track values o' property o' rich people would require a veritable army o' appraisers.

again, is why the proposed tax is specific limited to marketable assets such as stocks. is also creating the obvious loophole we mentioned earlier 'cause it don't apply to everything else. 

as for @Guard Dog, you don't care if the conspiracy is proven, as were evident with burisma. and yeah, it don't actual matter if the conspiracy is later proven true if you believed specific because it were a conspiracy which suggested politicians is bad. if doesn't make  a difference what is facts or evidence, then yeah is still conspiracy even if eventual facts show the belief to be true. you believe because o' the conclusion and often in spite o' facts.  is a conspiracy theory 'cause is based on assumptions which cannot be disproved and not 'cause o' actual evidence. ends up being correct is inconsequential as to why the conspiracy theory label is appropriate.

and again, you believe is all true because o' conclusion and regardless o' facts, so...

HA! Good Fun!

 

Actually when the facts are unknown and unknowable my standard of belief is “is it probable”. Generally speaking the facts are not completely known and not completely knowable when it comes to conspiracy theories involving political figures. Take Burmista as an example. Whether it is true or not true it does not change my opinion of the people involved so what does it matter? 

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Actually when the facts are unknown and unknowable my standard of belief is “is it probable”. Generally speaking the facts are not completely known and not completely knowable when it comes to conspiracy theories involving political figures. Take Burmista as an example. Whether it is true or not true it does not change my opinion of the people involved so what does it matter? 

so you assume a conspiracy is likely to be true regardless o' evidence and you don't change opinion o' the specific politicians involved even when your belief in the conspiracy theory is disproved?

...

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Just now, Gromnir said:

so you assume a conspiracy is likely to be true regardless o' evidence and you don't change opinion o' the specific politicians involved even when your belief in the conspiracy theory is disproved?

...

HA! Good Fun!

Disprove a conspiracy and I’ll stop believing it. Not many GET disproven. At least the ones that are probable don’t. Some you just dismiss out of hand because they are too complex or otherwise don’t make sense. Trump lost because of voter fraud. That falls flat on its face for many reasons. You can’t get away with THAT much fraud. He lost three Red states. And even if there were some things in PA that we’re not above board flipping PA changes nothing. Burmista for example IS believable. 

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I know Bruce I said all of those things in my original post on it. I still think it’s a stupid idea. Because it is. I also said it’s not something that’s actually happening and looking more and more unlikely that it will happen. It was just a hypothetical discussion.

But it is happening and its been justified because its  part of the reconciliation bill and that does have  important components like healthcare and education which means this controversial tax  can be justified .....but I doubt you can stop it happening?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whats-in-and-whats-out-of-democrats-dollar2-trillion-budget-reconciliation-plan/ar-AAMadUb

[Gromnir]

Just now, Guard Dog said:

Disprove a conspiracy and I’ll stop believing it.

what is wrong with you? that isn't the way it works for gawd's sake. we cannot disprove the conspiracy theory that aliens was behind the kennedy assassinations. there is no reasonable or scientific burden o' proving the negative, a fact which you should be aware. replacing any sorta causation argument with assumptions and correlation bs is exactly what the qanon folks do. burisma is no different than pizzagate or trump's election fraud nonsense. is believable to you because you already are convinced o' the conclusion and not because o' any actual evidence. the actual evidence supports a conclusion opposite o' your belief, but that don't matter, 'cause you believe all politicians is bad, and as such, a conspiracy which has biden engineering international malfeasance in broad daylight is similar believable. 

...

mr. spock read your post

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

Interesting quote regarding COP26 from Glasgow. 

 

"" "" "" "" "" "" "'' '" 

One of the most ironic tendencies of the summit is that President Joe Biden and other leaders have come to the conference pushing for more emissions cuts, and more commitments to green energy while also pushing oil producers at OPEC+ ramp up supply to help spare the US and Europe from a brutal winter. Given these contrarian commitments, the summit should allow Russia, China and others to throw the West's virtue-signaling when it comes to climate change - right back in its face.

What's even more ironic is that the two-week summit is happening under the shadow of the UK's own energy crisis. Which means that those who are in a position to try and cut greenhouse gasses are simply in too difficult a situation to try and fix it now. (hence Putin's decision to skip it)

"" "" "" "" '' '' '' '"" "

 

I wonder what are views of some of the people here. 

 

We all can agree, that in the long term, climate will change (the magnitude, timing and exact weight of factors are unknown) 

 

I wonder though, what would people be ready to drop from the day to day convieniences, like air travel, air conditioning, car travel, high energy consuming machines, like personal computers, using smartphones, buying processed and packaged food (so no frozen vegies, meat, etc.). 

[Zoraptor]

The whole thing's a joke. Humanity is utterly incapable of making the decisions necessary to fix such a problem, we're only capable of platitudes similar to the orchestra playing on the Titanic. Every politician in existence loves targets set 30 years in the future*, because they know that the abject failure to meet them won't be blamed on them. Pretty much any and all actual solutions require a lot less humans, yet every single country still wants to use an infinite expansion model because that's what the economic system requires. And as everyone knows there are only one types of people who believe in infinite expansion with finite resources- economists, politicians and idiots.

OTOH pictures of Joe Biden having a random snooze in public always bring a smile to the face.

*my favourite example of which was New Zealand becoming [introduced] predator free by 2050. With no extra money to actually be spent doing it, all the rats/ stoats/ hedgehogs/ cats etc would magically disappear due to the mere setting of the target.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Zoraptor

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

what is wrong with you? that isn't the way it works for gawd's sake. we cannot disprove the conspiracy theory that aliens was behind the kennedy assassinations. there is no reasonable or scientific burden o' proving the negative, a fact which you should be aware. replacing any sorta causation argument with assumptions and correlation bs is exactly what the qanon folks do. burisma is no different than pizzagate or trump's election fraud nonsense. is believable to you because you already are convinced o' the conclusion and not because o' any actual evidence. the actual evidence supports a conclusion opposite o' your belief, but that don't matter, 'cause you believe all politicians is bad, and as such, a conspiracy which has biden engineering international malfeasance in broad daylight is similar believable. 

...

mr. spock read your post

HA! Good Fun!

Sorry this was, as expected from you an intelligent reply, put that gif and last line and I am so stealing! But out of respect I promise I won’t use it here!

[Malcador]

On a bright side, probably gave the cops an excuse to toss some Neds in the clink.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Malcador

[Darkpriest]

11 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The whole thing's a joke. Humanity is utterly incapable of making the decisions necessary to fix such a problem, we're only capable of platitudes similar to the orchestra playing on the Titanic. Every politician in existence loves targets set 30 years in the future*, because they know that the abject failure to meet them won't be blamed on them. Pretty much any and all actual solutions require a lot less humans, yet every single country still wants to use an infinite expansion model because that's what the economic system requires. And as everyone knows there are only one types of people who believe in infinite expansion with finite resources- economists, politicians and idiots.

OTOH pictures of Joe Biden having a random snooze in public always bring a smile to the face.

*my favourite example of which was New Zealand becoming [introduced] predator free by 2050. With no extra money to actually be spent doing it, all the rats/ stoats/ hedgehogs/ cats etc would magically disappear due to the mere setting of the target.

He was not alone

Edited November 2, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Raithe]

[Darkpriest]

Seems @Guard Dogwill be a happy man in 2022

https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/

Seems like dems will suffer a lot for the ultra leftist views like CRT and other crap like that, plus perception on Biden seems to be worse and worse. If the inflation will stay high, dems will be in a run for losing two chambers and be left only with president. 

[Guard Dog]

5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Seems @Guard Dogwill be a happy man in 2022

https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/

Seems like dems will suffer a lot for the ultra leftist views like CRT and other crap like that, plus perception on Biden seems to be worse and worse. If the inflation will stay high, dems will be in a run for losing two chambers and be left only with president. 

That would make me happy. Even if just one house flipped it would make me happy. As long as Congress remains split I don't worry so much about who is in the White House. 

[Guard Dog]

I was just reading about Winsome Sears, the Virginia Lt. Governor Elect. She is very impressive AND a former Marine. OOORAH! 

[Darkpriest]

Surprisingly NJ is too close to call as well... Talk about spanking dems received so far

[Bartimaeus]

I don't have much of a problem with the job the Biden administration is doing in of itself (i.e. when it's not being held hostage to the two feckless senators from Arizona and West Virginia, though I always knew that the latter was going to be a serious problem from the get-go but accepted that it was certainly much better than handing Senate control over to Mitch McConnell), but the party itself as a whole has done pretty much the complete and utter opposite to inspire their voters to...well, vote for them. These results are sadly not much of a surprise - it seems likely Democrats will lose control of both the House and the Senate in 2022 unless they radically change course, and there's zero reason to expect them to, so...

Edited November 3, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

 it seems likely Democrats will lose control of both the House and the Senate in 2022 unless they radically change course, and there's zero reason to expect them to, so...

They are what they are. Neither side is worthy of our votes and neither side deserves to be in charge of picnic let alone a government of a country. It's much better to split things between them and quietly neutralize them both. No bills passed is infinitely preferable to bad bill passed. The more impotent the Federal government becomes the greater the opportunity for State governments to affect the governance of their individual states. Which is exactly how it was supposed to be all along to be honest. 

[Malcador]

US Dems having ultra leftist views is funny.