Poll: Is Donald Trump the GC? And how does this effect your vote?
Yes, he is the GC, and I'm voting for him.
No he is not the GC, but I'm voting for him.
Yes he is the GC but I'm voting Democrat.
No he is not the GC but I'm voting Democrat.
Yes, he is the GC, but I'm voting Third Party
No, he is not the GC, but I'm voting Third Party
Yes, he is the GC but I'm not voting
No he is not the GC but I'm not voting
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grey Champions and the Election of 2016
(11-21-2016, 07:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

I can't disagree with that one Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.  He simply earns a tiny income on all that wealth.  The reason is simple.  He is a billionaires because he owns scores of thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway A-class (BKA), a stock which in 1980 already sold for the high price of $275 a share, making Buffet worth tens of millions of dollars.  BKA never splits and does not pay dividends.  The entirely of any returns comes from future price appreciation.  Today BKA sells foe 236K, making Buffet worth a thousand times more than he was in 1980, simply through price appreciation.  As you must know, you don’t pay taxes on unrealized capital gains.  Buffet lives rather modestly for a man of his wealth, and so takes a relatively small salary as CEO, and sells only a handful of shares each year.  So his income is small.  But he pays a pretty normal rate on the income he receives.

Trump, on the other hand, has claimed that his income in 2015 exceeded $557 million—though Fortune has pointed out that the presidential candidate appears to be confusing revenues with net income, and probably made closer to $177 million last year, before taxes, on which Fortune estimates that Trump paid a tax rate of 15%, or about $27 million.

If this estimate is remotely correct then Trump pays much more in taxes than Buffet.  But Trump has intimated that he doesn't pay income taxes.  Some have speculated that this is why he didn't release his returns.
Since his supporters appear to already believe that Trump pays no taxes and have no problem with that, then this cannot be the reason Trump refused to release the returns.  The only conceivable secret he could be hiding is that he is not as rich as he claims to be and in fact is a failure as a businessman. 

As president he stands to gain hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, which will soon correct this issue.  Bush made his money from local government money and it appears that Trump plans to do the same, but on a far larger scale, with federal money.
Reply
(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.
Reply
(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.  Did you bribe politicians to get this arrangement?


The same thing would be true if you held a portfolio of growth stocks that don't pay dividends.  Your net worth would grow and you would never pay taxes on this "income".  Have you never done any investing?

This tax can still be avoided by giving the estate to charity.  Buffet has already started giving it away, probably at the urging of his friend Bill Gates who has already given a big chunk of his fortune to his foundation.  Most of Buffet's estate is going to the Gates foundation as well.  SO both of the great big fortunes will never be taxed, just as the Ford, Rockefellar and Carnegie fortunes before them.  Some elites actually seek to gain the use of their fortunes and to do this requires them to realize gains which gives them income that is then taxed.
Reply
(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.
Reply
(11-27-2016, 01:46 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.

The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.

401K withdrawals only occur if you live long enough.  All of this is tax avoidance by delaying realization of gains.  Rich people don't need their money for spending, as you astutely pointed out.   The only value of larger fortunes is either status (e.g. money is how you keep score) or power, neither of which has to be spent to have value. Concentrated wealth is dangerous to the health of a republic, which is why the founders avoided entailment.  Opposition to estate taxes, which your preferred party pushes relentlessly, is the modern equivalent of entailment.
Reply
(11-21-2016, 05:55 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Hi Kinser!

I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

I knew it was only a matter of time.

As for those who want to leave the country my view is they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

And yes the next four years will be interesting. I expect decentralization and dismantling the New Deal to the be the second order after the wall and re-asserting our national sovereignty. Maybe we can get back to being a union of states again.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(12-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 05:55 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Hi Kinser!

I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

I knew it was only a matter of time.

As for those who want to leave the country my view is they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

And yes the next four years will be interesting.  I expect decentralization and dismantling the New Deal to the be the second order after the wall and re-asserting our national sovereignty.  Maybe we can get back to being a union of states again.

In a prior incarnation as a Marxist, you would have loved this because it would have created the circumstances in which a Socialist insurrection becomes likely -- absence of democracy, corrupt and incompetent leadership, suppression of non-violent opposition... something like Cuba in the late 1950s, Cuba until then the most economically-advanced country to have had a Marxist revolution.

The next four years will be interesting in the sense that a house fire is interesting -- if your idea of entertainment is destruction of a fine old house with some fine antique furniture in it . I think it will be sickening to watch as the ravaged contents once precious are removed.

I almost expect Donald Trump to make a sick parody of a line in JFK's inaugural address to "Ask what your country can do TO you".
Donald Trump is the real-life Berzelius Windrip (Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
Grey Champion

From the book "The Fourth Turning,” the Grey Champion is first a fictional character, and second a personification of the Prophet Generation.  Worshiping an individual (such as Trump) as a Grey Champion misses the point being made by Strauss and Howe when they wrote about Generations and the 4T.  Trump does not communicate morals, ethics or ideals, has no bond with Millennials, and does not stand in the way of authoritarian aggression.  Therefore Trump is not a valid representation of a Grey Champion (during Elderhood) from the Prophet Generation as defined by Strauss and Howe.

A valid example of the Grey Champion might be:
1. Water Protectors standing in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
2. Standing in the path of coal and oil trains.
3. Standing up in court suing the Federal Gov. for Due Process to protect life and liberty of today's children threatened by consequences of climate change.  

As a result, Jim Quinn of the Burning Platform is wrong to label Presidents past and President-elect as Grey Champions.
Reply
(12-04-2016, 07:52 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Kinser -

I'm having some trouble navigating this forum, esp the multiple embedded quotes that make it difficult to tell who wrote what. 

But from what I can tell, the liberals on this forum are much like the freaked-out liberals running the MSM. They still haven't figured out that insulting "flyover country" and demanding safe spaces won't win you any friends. And even Jill Stein, whom I used to respect a great deal, is now losing her shit. 

My lib cousin told me before the election that the founders set up the electoral college because they (correctly) didn't trust the public. That elitist mentality has now come back to smack her in the face. Karma.

That's about all I have to say at this point. Might check in again in the future but like I said this forum isn't the easiest for me to read.

Take care!

It isn't just the libtards who are losing their proverbial shit. Coastal neo-cons and the cuckservatives are losing their shit as well. Just look at Alphabet Soup. He's a coastal Neocon and he's clearly losing his shit. But then again the Neo-cons themselves are derivative of Trotskyism anyway so he may fit in with the Democrats for other reasons.

@PBR.

Peaceful protests? I take it you don't get out much. Usually BLM is rioting when they're not killing the police. The fact is that he will at the very least take out the old orders of both parties. The Democrats being a collection of interest groups held together by an ideology (social democracy) and the Republicans a collection of ideologies held together by an interest group (the chamber of commerce).

My mother has been losing her shit as well. Saying things like with Trump we're going to end up with something we don't want. Honestly I don't care. Even if he does nothing but burn the place to the ground that is still progress because we've been on pause for 8 years now. The clock is ticking and the turning is half over.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(11-29-2016, 03:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(11-27-2016, 01:46 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-26-2016, 12:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 01:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 11:55 AM)Mikebert Wrote: The link you provided is paywalled.  Here is one from Forbes:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/warren-buffett-taxes-trump/
 
It shows Buffet paid taxes:
 
Adjusted gross income: $11.6 million [$0.01 billion]
Deductible charitable contributions: $3.5 million
Total deductions: $5.5 million
Federal income tax paid: $1.8 million [$0.002 billion]
 
Buffet’s tax bill does amount to less than a tenth of percent of his net worth, but it is 30% of his his taxable income of 6.1 million.

The key word there being the "taxable" in "taxable income".

As discussed in my link, Buffet's net work increases by on the order of $10 billion - not million, billion - per year.  By any reasonable psychohistorical or "cliodynamical" analysis, that counts as income, as it increases Buffet's ownership share and control of the world through his personal holding company.  That fact that well over 99% of his income is nontaxable just proves my point.  His effective tax rate is less than a tenth of a percent.

It is not income if it cannot be spent.  First you assert billionaires don't pay taxes because they pay bribes to prevent it.  Then you assert that one can have billions in untaxed income which somehow can bribe politicians without being spent.  You are not making any sense.

It can be spent - at any time, Buffet can sell off some of his shares and spend the proceeds.  Just because he chooses to save it does not make it other than income, especially from a generational dynamics perspective.

As for bribes, please reread my post; I said nothing about bribes, I just said "rich enough to buy politicians".  He doesn't actually have to buy them.  He can sponsor fundraisers with his rich friends, getting around campaign contribution limits.  He can threaten to donate to an opposition PAC.  He can use his control of Berkshire Hathaway to influence the flow of contributions and lobbying; after all, through Berkshire, he controls the boards of many large corporations.  In politics, as in the military, the person's capabilities are more important than his actions, and Buffett has plenty of capability to interfere with politics should things not go his way.

Quote:People who do what Buffet does are why you want highly progressive estate taxes.  If you never sell a rising asset you never pay taxes on the gains because they are not realized.  When you die the asset is transferred to you heirs, and at that point taxes are paid if you have an estate tax.  A fair system would tax billion+ estates at >90%.  Then you would collect the taxes avoided while the person lived.

Irrespective of the situation you want, or consider fair, that's not the situation you have.  In fact, what happens with finance billionaires like Buffett is that they put their money into nominally charitable trusts, so that it's never taxed, either for capital gains or by estate taxes.  The trusts are controlled by Buffett while he's alive, and by whatever heirs he selects after he dies.  He or his heirs can continue to control and build their wealth and power, giving themselves whatever money they want when they want it.

Quote:If you have a 401K or a Roth IRA, you enjoy Buffets situation.  You net worth grows each year and you don't pay any taxes on this "income".  If you then die before you ever withdraw any of it then this asset passes to your heirs and you never pay any taxes on it.  If your estate is below a few million the transfer is tax-free and you too will have never paid any taxes on all that "income" you gained throughout your life.

False.  401k accounts have required distributions, on which capital gains taxes must be paid.  Buffett is 86; had he had similar requirements on his fortune, he would have had to withdraw and pay taxes on billions of dollars per year for the past 15 years - paying billions, rather than millions, in taxes.  That's hundreds or thousands of times more taxes he'd have paid.

And of course, we wouldn't "enjoy Buffett's situation" unless we had enough in our retirement accounts that their growth would be virtually unaffected by withdrawals large enough to allow us to live comfortably.  In other words, we'd need hundreds of millions if not billions - which would make us part of the elites, not part of the general population.

The bottom line is that Buffett pays virtually no taxes on his billions, and never will, nor do others in the billionaire class.

401K withdrawals only occur if you live long enough.  All of this is tax avoidance by delaying realization of gains.  Rich people don't need their money for spending, as you astutely pointed out.   The only value of larger fortunes is either status (e.g. money is how you keep score) or power, neither of which has to be spent to have value. Concentrated wealth is dangerous to the health of a republic, which is why the founders avoided entailment.  Opposition to estate taxes, which your preferred party pushes relentlessly, is the modern equivalent of entailment.

Wrong about 401ks.  If you don't live long enough, then your heirs have to start withdrawals.  Taxes on them may be deferred until after death, but they cannot be deferred forever, the way Buffett's schemes do.

I agree that concentrated wealth is societally problematic.  If he were actually likely to pay estate taxes, I'd be in favor of them.  He isn't, though, so some other method of dealing with the problem is necessary.
Reply
(12-11-2016, 05:04 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 07:52 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Kinser -

I'm having some trouble navigating this forum, esp the multiple embedded quotes that make it difficult to tell who wrote what. 

But from what I can tell, the liberals on this forum are much like the freaked-out liberals running the MSM. They still haven't figured out that insulting "flyover country" and demanding safe spaces won't win you any friends. And even Jill Stein, whom I used to respect a great deal, is now losing her shit. 

My lib cousin told me before the election that the founders set up the electoral college because they (correctly) didn't trust the public. That elitist mentality has now come back to smack her in the face. Karma.

That's about all I have to say at this point. Might check in again in the future but like I said this forum isn't the easiest for me to read.

Take care!

It isn't just the libtards who are losing their proverbial shit.  Coastal neo-cons and the cuckservatives are losing their shit as well.  Just look at Alphabet Soup.  He's a coastal Neocon and he's clearly losing his shit.  But then again the Neo-cons themselves are derivative of Trotskyism anyway so he may fit in with the Democrats for other reasons.

@PBR.

Peaceful protests?  I take it you don't get out much.  Usually BLM is rioting when they're not killing the police.  The fact is that he will at the very least take out the old orders of both parties.  The Democrats being a collection of interest groups held together by an ideology (social democracy) and the Republicans a collection of ideologies held together by an interest group (the chamber of commerce).

My mother has been losing her shit as well.  Saying things like with Trump we're going to end up with something we don't want. Honestly I don't care.  Even if he does nothing but burn the place to the ground that is still progress because we've been on pause for 8 years now.  The clock is ticking and the turning is half over.

Everyone who isn't a Russian patsy is RIGHTFULLY losing our shit.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
(12-11-2016, 05:04 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 07:52 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: Kinser -

I'm having some trouble navigating this forum, esp the multiple embedded quotes that make it difficult to tell who wrote what. 

But from what I can tell, the liberals on this forum are much like the freaked-out liberals running the MSM. They still haven't figured out that insulting "flyover country" and demanding safe spaces won't win you any friends. And even Jill Stein, whom I used to respect a great deal, is now losing her shit. 

My lib cousin told me before the election that the founders set up the electoral college because they (correctly) didn't trust the public. That elitist mentality has now come back to smack her in the face. Karma.

That's about all I have to say at this point. Might check in again in the future but like I said this forum isn't the easiest for me to read.

Take care!

It isn't just the libtards who are losing their proverbial shit.  Coastal neo-cons and the cuckservatives are losing their shit as well.  Just look at Alphabet Soup.  He's a coastal Neocon and he's clearly losing his shit.  But then again the Neo-cons themselves are derivative of Trotskyism anyway so he may fit in with the Democrats for other reasons.

"Alphabet Soup" admits that he used to be a neocon, and steadily went liberal as the neocon cause became increasingly objectionable. He left it not because it weakened; he left it because it began to become morally objectionable. That some are ex-Trotskyites demonstrates some of the appeal of neo-con ideology to the True Believer.

The True Believer? Eric Hoffer got it right. People who astound the world by going from one fanatical cause to another aren't so astonishing a phenomenon as they might seem at first. They go from one power-hungry, violent, intolerant cause to another because they are power-hungry, violent, and intolerant. If a Ku Kluxist or neo-Nazi becomes a Muslim then one can expect an "Islamofascist" because he has gone from one form of fascism to another. Thus the renegade socialists who went fascist, the brutal enforcers of fascistic regimes who became brutal enforcers of Communist regimes, Baathist brutes who became brutes for Daesh... Principle in such a cause is but window-dressing.

You having gone from supporting the legacy of Enver Hoxha to becoming a loud supporter of Donald Trump shows a lack of any thought-out principle. You can sell out a cause when it seems to be getting weak for one that seems in the ascendant. 

Quote:@PBR.

Peaceful protests?  I take it you don't get out much.  Usually BLM is rioting when they're not killing the police.  The fact is that he will at the very least take out the old orders of both parties.  The Democrats being a collection of interest groups held together by an ideology (social democracy) and the Republicans a collection of ideologies held together by an interest group (the chamber of commerce).

I live in a rural area. I have seen peaceful protests, but not the sorts that I want to join... Tea Party cultists and something by a LaRouche cult that protested in front of a post office with a picture of Barack Obama with a Hitler hairdo and mustache. I challenged that group with a little lie about my ethnic origin... basically because I had relatives who perished in the Holocaust (truth be told I probably had seventh-cousins or so perpetrating the Holocaust) I said that comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler mocked the pointless suffering of my relatives. Those relatives might be fictional to me but they are all too real to some others.

I expect Donald Trump to create plenty of issues on which I can find compatible groups to join -- labor rights, environment, reproductive rights, education, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities... If you thought that Barack Obama had trouble with the semi-literate people of the Tea Party, then just think what happens when liberals have bigger rallies and show more wit, erudition, and civility. Should someone seek to turn the protest into an excuse for a riot, then I might take some photos for use by local prosecutors. Smash a storefront window? Torch a car? Throw a brick? Assault a cop or a peaceful protester? Click. Click. Click... with the expectation that the rioter goes to the clink... clink... clink.

Quote:My mother has been losing her shit as well.  Saying things like with Trump we're going to end up with something we don't want. Honestly I don't care.  Even if he does nothing but burn the place to the ground that is still progress because we've been on pause for 8 years now.  The clock is ticking and the turning is half over.

Your mother and I are likely in agreement on that. Donald Trump's stated positions suggest a desire to turn race relations back at least fifty-five years and to turn labor-management relations back about ninety.

We are in the penultimate stage of the Crisis -- the time in which history accelerates. Seventy-five years ago the Axis powers were kicking the Allies everywhere. Seventy years ago most of the major Axis figures were either dead or on trial for their lives. We have been on pause because we have had leadership good enough to avoid making catastrophic mistakes but not good enough (or politically strong enough) to force a decisive and satisfying end to the Crisis.

This 4T may be more like 3/4 over. At this stage I can see similar probabilities of a salubrious ending or a horrific ending of this Crisis. We are going to see domestic strife as we have never seen before. We are going to hear invective that we will shield children from after the Crisis.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
It's hard to say whether or not he will be yet.
Reply
(12-11-2016, 06:43 PM)Odin Wrote: Everyone who isn't a Russian patsy is RIGHTFULLY losing our shit.

One problem with that theory Odin. It is based on nothing. That being said I do find it ironic that Four Years ago Obama mocked Romney for running around about Russia being a big scary thing but now Trump himself is supposed to be a Russian Agent. I suppose millions of Americans voted for Not Hillary because they were under some sort of Russian Mind Control, right? Right?

Seriously and you claim that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. There is a conspiracy and it is no theory but it is the CIA who will likely make moves to Assassinate Trump rather than anything the Russians have done, could do or might have done.

Interestingly in the Guardian today the former Ambassador from the UK says he knows the DNC leaker and they're not Russian and not remotely affiliated with Russia. The facts are clear HRC lost the election and she lost on her record and because everyone is sick of her and everything she stands for.

(12-11-2016, 08:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Alphabet Soup" admits that he used to be a neocon, and steadily went liberal as the neocon cause became increasingly objectionable. He left it not because it weakened; he left it because it began to become morally objectionable. That some are ex-Trotskyites demonstrates some of the appeal of neo-con ideology to the True Believer.

The Neo-Con ideology is itself an outgrowth of Trotskyism. They are applying the permanent revolution theory but for different reasons. As for Aphabet Soup himself, I perceive him as well meaning but ultimately very misguided.

Quote:You having gone from supporting the legacy of Enver Hoxha to becoming a loud supporter of Donald Trump shows a lack of any thought-out principle. You can sell out a cause when it seems to be getting weak for one that seems in the ascendant. 

Your diatribe about what is and is not a "True Believer" is mostly irrelevant. I still have a great deal of Respect for Stalin and yes even Enver Hoxha. I've actually used Marxism and the National Question recently in explaining national identities and how identity informs culture which of course informs politics. One of those nasty little Alt-Right theories as well.

The facts are clear. A Marxist-Leninist revolution is not going to happen in the US. The material conditions for such a thing simply does not exist, indeed it likely is not likely to exist. That being said, if they did exist, a hard line Robber Baron Republican would make a revolution likely. However, Trump is not a hard line Robber Baron Republican--which is what the opposition from the establishment Wall Street crowd clearly indicates.

Quote:I live in a rural area. I have seen peaceful protests, but not the sorts that I want to join... Tea Party cultists and something by a LaRouche cult that protested in front of a post office with a picture of Barack Obama with a Hitler hairdo and mustache. I challenged that group with a little lie about my ethnic origin... basically because I had relatives who perished in the Holocaust (truth be told I probably had seventh-cousins or so perpetrating the Holocaust) I said that comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler mocked the pointless suffering of my relatives. Those relatives might be fictional to me but they are all too real to some others.

Tell me how many tea partiers, as nasty as they are, have murdered police officers. Tell me how many tea partiers have caused riots. I'm not saying that I'm agreeing with them but BLM not they are fomenting racial hatred and division.

Quote:I expect Donald Trump to create plenty of issues on which I can find compatible groups to join -- labor rights, environment, reproductive rights, education, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities... If you thought that Barack Obama had trouble with the semi-literate people of the Tea Party, then just think what happens when liberals have bigger rallies and show more wit, erudition, and civility. Should someone seek to turn the protest into an excuse for a riot, then I might take some photos for use by local prosecutors. Smash a storefront window? Torch a car? Throw a brick? Assault a cop or a peaceful protester? Click. Click. Click... with the expectation that the rioter goes to the clink... clink... clink.

Were you to actually go to a protest on the left (which you won't because it would first require you to leave your house) you'd see that by far and away it is a highly radical minority which is behind those things. But it is almost always the left and not the right that has those issues. I should know I've spent most of my life on the left, and not just "I vote Democrat for X, Y, Z so I'm left" I mean the hard left.

Quote:Your mother and I are likely in agreement on that. Donald Trump's stated positions suggest a desire to turn race relations back at least fifty-five years and to turn labor-management relations back about ninety.

My mother is ignorant what is your excuse?

Donald Trump not only desegregates the country clubs he's bought out but also insists Jews be allowed in (and I know you have hard on for Jews). It is a point of business policy of his going back decades. Not only that he's hired hundreds if not thousands of blacks and latinos. The man is not a racist, and because his actions speak for themselves he feels no reason to justify himself to others. Tell me how many country clubs you've desegregated, how many blacks and latinos have you hired.

Quote:We are in the penultimate stage of the Crisis -- the time in which history accelerates. Seventy-five years ago the Axis powers were kicking the Allies everywhere. Seventy years ago most of the major Axis figures were either dead or on trial for their lives. We have been on pause because we have had leadership good enough to avoid making catastrophic mistakes but not good enough (or politically strong enough) to force a decisive and satisfying end to the Crisis.

No we've been on pause because we've not had leadership at all. We've had status quo democrats blocking the GOP and status quo GOP blocking the current president. The break needs to come off so we can finish this. I'm tired of this turning, and if it takes Trump burning the country to the ground to do that great. If he instead makes America great again then great.

At this point I don't care, I just want the play button pressed. I'd like to have a 1T to enjoy before I'm senile.

Quote:This 4T may be more like 3/4 over. At this stage I can see similar probabilities of a salubrious ending or a horrific ending of this Crisis. We are going to see domestic strife as we have never seen before. We are going to hear invective that we will shield children from after the Crisis.

In the film Zero Generation they place the start of the 4T some where in 2008. I've always placed it in 2005-2006 with Katrina. (The big K demonstrated that the status quo isn't working and can't work and changed the mood of at least the South, if not the country.)

As it stands if we take the 2008 as the start that means that we're 8 years, almost 9 years into the 4T. 9 years into the last one was 1938, the one before that was 1859. I've said repeatedly this past election that Trump's election reminds me the most of Lincoln's.

If the following things happen there will be a civil war, you can bank on it:

1. Trump is assassinated before he takes office.
2. The Electoral College attempts to subvert the clear will of the people through faithless electors.
3. Congress when they count the votes on 6 January 2017 pull a stunt to put in Paul Ryan or some other "compromise candidate" into the Oval Office.

All of the running around about Russian agents and fake news and etc is the powers that be in panic mode because no one believes them, no one trusts them, and Trump is going to end their power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8

I recommend watching the film. I'm told that Bannon had a hand in it, and that he subscibes at least some what to S&H theory.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(12-12-2016, 02:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: brower2a
[quote pid='15102' dateline='1481506447']
"Alphabet Soup" admits that he used to be a neocon, and steadily went liberal as the neocon cause became increasingly objectionable. He left it not because it weakened; he left it because it began to become morally objectionable. That some are ex-Trotskyites demonstrates some of the appeal of neo-con ideology to the True Believer.

The Neo-Con ideology is itself an outgrowth of Trotskyism.  They are applying the permanent revolution theory but for different reasons.  As for Aphabet Soup himself, I perceive him as well meaning but ultimately very misguided.
[/quote]

Nobody is perfect. Nobody is perfectly prescient.

Quote:You having gone from supporting the legacy of Enver Hoxha to becoming a loud supporter of Donald Trump shows a lack of any thought-out principle. You can sell out a cause when it seems to be getting weak for one that seems in the ascendant. 

Your diatribe about what is and is not a "True Believer" is mostly irrelevant.  I still have a great deal of Respect for Stalin and yes even Enver Hoxha.  I've actually used Marxism and the National Question recently in explaining national identities and how identity informs culture which of course informs politics.  One of those nasty little Alt-Right theories as well.

The facts are clear.  A Marxist-Leninist revolution is not going to happen in the US.  The material conditions for such a thing simply does not exist, indeed it likely is not likely to exist.  That being said, if they did exist, a hard line Robber Baron Republican would make a revolution likely.  However, Trump is not a hard line Robber Baron Republican--which is what the opposition from the establishment Wall Street crowd clearly indicates.[/quote]

Well, at least I have no use for one of the biggest murderers of all time... or for any corrupt kleptocrat with sociopathic tendencies. 

Quote:I live in a rural area. I have seen peaceful protests, but not the sorts that I want to join... Tea Party cultists and something by a LaRouche cult that protested in front of a post office with a picture of Barack Obama with a Hitler hairdo and mustache. I challenged that group with a little lie about my ethnic origin... basically because I had relatives who perished in the Holocaust (truth be told I probably had seventh-cousins or so perpetrating the Holocaust) I said that comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler mocked the pointless suffering of my relatives. Those relatives might be fictional to me but they are all too real to some others.  

Tell me how many tea partiers, as nasty as they are, have murdered police officers.  Tell me how many tea partiers have caused riots.  I'm not saying that I'm agreeing with them but BLM not they are fomenting racial hatred and division.[/quote]

As a liberal I know enough to stay away from them. I can't change their minds.

But just think of the new law in Ohio that practically criminalizes any abortion -- basically by outlawing any abortion as soon as a fetus is known to exist. I expect some protests... abortion-rights protesters might be strident, but no more so than the Tea Party.

This is my idea of how to challenge Donald Trump and his band of merry stooges

Quote:I expect Donald Trump to create plenty of issues on which I can find compatible groups to join -- labor rights, environment, reproductive rights, education, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities... If you thought that Barack Obama had trouble with the semi-literate people of the Tea Party, then just think what happens when liberals have bigger rallies and show more wit, erudition, and civility. Should someone seek to turn the protest into an excuse for a riot, then I might take some photos for use by local prosecutors. Smash a storefront window? Torch a car? Throw a brick? Assault a cop or a peaceful protester? Click. Click. Click... with the expectation that the rioter goes to the clink... clink... clink.

Were you to actually go to a protest on the left (which you won't because it would first require you to leave your house) you'd see that by far and away it is a highly radical minority which is behind those things.  But it is almost always the left and not the right that has those issues.  I should know I've spent most of my life on the left, and not just "I vote Democrat for X, Y, Z so I'm left"  I mean the hard left.[/quote]

I am not Hard Left. I have had few opportunities for finding something worthy of protesting. I might soon have an excuse to go to Columbus, Ohio, about a three-hour drive from where I live.

Quote:Your mother and I are likely in agreement on that. Donald Trump's stated positions suggest a desire to turn race relations back at least fifty-five years and to turn labor-management relations back about ninety.

My mother is ignorant what is your excuse?

Donald Trump not only desegregates the country clubs he's bought out but also insists Jews be allowed in (and I know you have hard on for Jews).  It is a point of business policy of his going back decades.  Not only that he's hired hundreds if not thousands of blacks and latinos.  The man is not a racist, and because his actions speak for themselves he feels no reason to justify himself to others.  Tell me how many country clubs you've desegregated, how many blacks and latinos have you hired.[/quote]

I'm not a business owner. But there are people who believe that business freedom includes the right to discriminate.

Donald Trump used racist rhetoric in his campaign speeches.

Quote:We are in the penultimate stage of the Crisis -- the time in which history accelerates. Seventy-five years ago the Axis powers were kicking the Allies everywhere. Seventy years ago most of the major Axis figures were either dead or on trial for their lives. We have been on pause because we have had leadership good enough to avoid making catastrophic mistakes but not good enough (or politically strong enough) to force a decisive and satisfying end to the Crisis.

No we've been on pause because we've not had leadership at all.  We've had status quo democrats blocking the GOP and status quo GOP blocking the current president.  The break needs to come off so we can finish this.  I'm tired of this turning, and if it takes Trump burning the country to the ground to do that great.  If he instead makes America great again then great.

At this point I don't care, I just want the play button pressed.  I'd like to have a 1T to enjoy before I'm senile.[/quote]

We have had gridlock that has prevented either a decisive and positive resolution or an attempt to force the issues in an apocalypse. Now that America is about to be ruled by people in lockstep, people who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it creates high profits or high executive compensation, we are about to reap the whirlwind.

Quote:This 4T may be more like 3/4 over. At this stage I can see similar probabilities of a salubrious ending or a horrific ending of this Crisis. We are going to see domestic strife as we have never seen before. We are going to hear invective that we will shield children from after the Crisis.

Quote:In the film Zero Generation they place the start of the 4T some where in 2008.  I've always placed it in 2005-2006 with Katrina.  (The big K demonstrated that the status quo isn't working and can't work and changed the mood of at least the South, if not the country.)

As it stands if we take the 2008 as the start that means that we're 8 years, almost 9 years into the 4T.  9 years into the last one was 1938, the one before that was 1859.  I've said repeatedly this past election that Trump's election reminds me the most of Lincoln's.

If the following things happen there will be a civil war, you can bank on it:

1.  Trump is assassinated before he takes office.
2.  The Electoral College attempts to subvert the clear will of the people through faithless electors.
3.  Congress when they count the votes on 6 January 2017 pull a stunt to put in Paul Ryan or some other "compromise candidate" into the Oval Office.

All of the running around about Russian agents and fake news and etc is the powers that be in panic mode because no one believes them, no one trusts them, and Trump is going to end their power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8

I recommend watching the film.  I'm told that Bannon had a hand in it, and that he subscibes at least some what to S&H theory.

I concur on Katrina. But one other form of Civil War is a Dirty War in which the Establishment sets the police and armed forces loose to stifle dissent, if necessary with mass murder as in Chile under Pinochet. I can imagine America becoming a fascist oligarchy in which the key to survival is to play dumb, work to exhaustion for near-starvation pay, be satisfied with moronic entertainment as the Opiate of the Masses,  and praise the Great and Glorious Leaders and those around him.

One can read  just about anything that one wants into the S&H theory. History has shown elsewhere that anything is possible in a 4T -- much of it horrible.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(12-12-2016, 03:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Nobody is perfect. Nobody is perfectly prescient.

Red Herring. I made no claim to the contrary. I was merely pointing out that the Neo-Con ideology itself is an outgrowth of Trotskyism. There is a clear delination of those who in the 1930s were card carrying Trots down to 1960s radicals, to the Neo-Cons. This is the history.

Quote:Well, at least I have no use for one of the biggest murderers of all time... or for any corrupt kleptocrat with sociopathic tendencies. 

Good for you. That we all should be so pure. That being said many of those you follow have loads of good things to say about Castro and Che, both jailed, purged and even expropriated. Just saying.

Quote:As a liberal I know enough to stay away from them. I can't change their minds.

Pretty much why I don't debate Eric, Alphabet Soup or even you for that matter. Boomers by and large are a lost cause anyway, they've been values locked since the Awakening--Alphabet Soup is an Xer but I think he too is values locked. I can and will continue to point out the flaws of your arguments--such as they are (as we know they are mostly memorized and repeated ad nauseum)

Quote:But just think of the new law in Ohio that practically criminalizes any abortion -- basically by outlawing any abortion as soon as a fetus is known to exist. I expect some protests... abortion-rights protesters might be strident, but no more so than the Tea Party.

You really should stop watching the fake news source known as CNN. That law establishes a cut off date of 20 weeks of gestation which is actually quite common. Since a woman would be 5 months pregnant, she should already know long before then that she is pregnant. Also many other states have such a cut off point. Dead issue.

As for the Ebony magazine article...Ebony is a rag. So much so that it isn't even in the salons. I should know since I've been going to the same stylist for years since she knows how to get my hair texturing just right.

Quote:I am not Hard Left. I have had few opportunities for finding something worthy of protesting. I might soon have an excuse to go to Columbus, Ohio, about a three-hour drive from where I live.

Good, if you think that is something you should do, you definitely should go to a protest. Being raised in the Pentecostal Church I can tell you that it is akin to a powerful worship service. But then again political protests have been a sacrament on the left since the 1960s. And the Hard Left actually uses such language to describe it.

Quote:I'm not a business owner. But there are people who believe that business freedom includes the right to discriminate.

Yes, and they would be wrong to discriminate against serving or hiring people on the basis of their race or religion. I'd say the same thing for Sexual Orientation as well but I highly doubt that any left group is going to target a Halal Meat Market for refusing to serve a gay wedding. It goes against the narrative. The fact is that Donald Trump does not conduct business that way.

Quote:Donald Trump used racist rhetoric in his campaign speeches.

Really? Where? I demand sauce for this or you're just shilling for the Establishment Democrats.

Quote:We have had gridlock that has prevented either a decisive and positive resolution or an attempt to force the issues in an apocalypse. Now that America is about to be ruled by people in lockstep, people who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it creates high profits or high executive compensation, we are about to reap the whirlwind.

That is not the case, again Trump's personal actions speak to that--however, even if it were, I'd say it was a positive good because it would, in the case of any form of remotely industrializing cause the conditions necessary for a revolution. Indeed, the expectation that things should get better for the common people, which Trump definitely ran on could establish the conditions necessary for a revolution or civil war of some sort.

Quote:This 4T may be more like 3/4 over. At this stage I can see similar probabilities of a salubrious ending or a horrific ending of this Crisis. We are going to see domestic strife as we have never seen before. We are going to hear invective that we will shield children from after the Crisis.

Quote:I concur on Katrina. But one other form of Civil War is a Dirty War in which the Establishment sets the police and armed forces loose to stifle dissent, if necessary with mass murder as in Chile under Pinochet. I can imagine America becoming a fascist oligarchy in which the key to survival is to play dumb, work to exhaustion for near-starvation pay, be satisfied with moronic entertainment as the Opiate of the Masses,  and praise the Great and Glorious Leaders and those around him.

I agree. Whose policies have caused those conditions? I'll give you a hint, not Donald Trump. Consider for a second which side is ranting and raving now about "fake news" and "foreign propaganda". Again same hint, not Donald Trump--hell not even the GOP unless you count Archcuckservative John McInsane.

Quote:One can read  just about anything that one wants into the S&H theory. History has shown elsewhere that anything is possible in a 4T -- much of it horrible.

How about this as a thought experiment:

Let us suppose that Bannon who will be Trump's chief advisor (that is a White House staff position and he could hire a whore from 2nd Avenue if he wanted for White House positions) does subscribe to S&H theory. Let us also suppose that he feels that a crisis climax not only is coming but inevitable (like S&H theory does) and thus he can stear the direction of that climax.

Now assuming that we only have two choices: Some sort of trade war with China and maybe the EU (but unlikely to be them mostly China) OR a thermonuclear war with Russia. Which do you think he'd pick. Remember we are talking about a man with a great deal of influence over the President.

I'm going to put my shekels down on a trade war. I have this strange inkling that Trump and Bannon both prefer to not be vaporized along with the rest of humanity.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(12-12-2016, 03:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [quote pid='15145' dateline='1481573366']
How about this as a thought experiment:

Let us suppose that Bannon who will be Trump's chief advisor (that is a White House staff position and he could hire a whore from 2nd Avenue if he wanted for White House positions) does subscribe to S&H theory.  Let us also suppose that he feels that a crisis climax not only is coming but inevitable (like S&H theory does) and thus he can stear the direction of that climax.

Now assuming that we only have two choices:  Some sort of trade war with China and maybe the EU (but unlikely to be them mostly China) OR a thermonuclear war with Russia.  Which do you think he'd pick.  Remember we are talking about a man with a great deal of influence over the President.

I'm going to put my shekels down on a trade war.  I have this strange inkling that Trump and Bannon both prefer to not be vaporized along with the rest of humanity.

[/quote]

This assumes that the outcomes of a trade war are clearly predictable and manageable.  There's no certainty with respect to where the escalation of a trade war or embargo or sanctions might lead to, esp in a 4T where escalation & the sense of urgency is ramped up exponentially. 

My biggest concern is that other countries have been playing the long game (think star trek style 3D chess) while this administration has appeared to be fairly short-term thinkers.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Reply
(12-13-2016, 08:44 AM)tg63 Wrote:
(12-12-2016, 03:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [quote pid='15145' dateline='1481573366']
How about this as a thought experiment:

Let us suppose that Bannon who will be Trump's chief advisor (that is a White House staff position and he could hire a whore from 2nd Avenue if he wanted for White House positions) does subscribe to S&H theory.  Let us also suppose that he feels that a crisis climax not only is coming but inevitable (like S&H theory does) and thus he can stear the direction of that climax.

Now assuming that we only have two choices:  Some sort of trade war with China and maybe the EU (but unlikely to be them mostly China) OR a thermonuclear war with Russia.  Which do you think he'd pick.  Remember we are talking about a man with a great deal of influence over the President.

I'm going to put my shekels down on a trade war.  I have this strange inkling that Trump and Bannon both prefer to not be vaporized along with the rest of humanity.

This assumes that the outcomes of a trade war are clearly predictable and manageable.  There's no certainty with respect to where the escalation of a trade war or embargo or sanctions might lead to, esp in a 4T where escalation & the sense of urgency is ramped up exponentially. 

My biggest concern is that other countries have been playing the long game (think star trek style 3D chess) while this administration has appeared to be fairly short-term thinkers.

I would say that the Obama Administration has certainly been playing on the short term. That being said I think Trump can and will play a long game strategy, or at least as long game as is foreseeable. People underestimate him and he's used that to his advantage repeatedly.

As to trade wars, with China in particular the US is a stronger position than they are since the only strategic resource the monopolize currently is Rare Earth metals. This is not a problem as there are other sources that can and should be developed. Furthermore, embargoes on large powerful countries don't work all that well. I'll use Russia as an example. The US led the EU and most of NATO into embargoing Russia. What was the result? Russia instituted import substitution.

Furthermore, by implementing import substitution, this plays into a long term strategy. Offshoring and the like usually only has short term profits--great if your goal is to get your bonus and move on, not so great if you're playing long term. At current the Trump Team is only releasing as far as trade goes a desire to create new trade deals of a bilateral nature (IE the US and Country X make Y deal but it does not involve countries A, B, C, or D--unlike say NAFTA or TPP) and a reduction of corporate taxes to 5% lower than international average.

If we stop to consider for a moment that the USD is the reserve currency (mostly because everything boils down to oil) we are strongly favored in a trade war with China, and they are unlikely to launch nukes against us in a trade matter. However, physically attacking Russia could in all likelihood result in nukes being launched. (Who launches first is irrelevant the point is attacking nuclear powers has the tendency for nuclear weapons to be being used--one of the key reasons the DPRK even developed them.)
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...da0aa5e7a1

I'm currently voting for John McCain as Grey Champion. Lord knows I disagree with him on a host of issues, but I don't doubt his good faith affection for the best for our country.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]"... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."[/font]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neither of the current major party candidates is the "Grey Champion". Einzige 50 20,257 11-21-2016, 09:32 AM
Last Post: 2Legit2Quit
  This may be the last presidential election dominated by Boomers and prior generations Dan '82 2 1,860 09-05-2016, 09:48 PM
Last Post: Warren Dew
  Being "Wide Awake" in 1856, getting "Woke" in 2016 Odin 1 1,335 09-03-2016, 02:26 PM
Last Post: taramarie
  Article: The Ghosts of ’68 Haunt the Election of 2016 Odin 34 11,848 07-18-2016, 06:04 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)