Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:01 am
Apparently, all he did to incur their wrath was to say "Happy 70th Birthday, Israel" on his facebook page.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9290
I thought that white women were dropping out because of infighting in the other direction. Interesting.I Shrugged wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:38 am https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... too-white/
California organizers of womens march cancel it because it is deemed to be too white.
(article)
Others pointed out that the Northern California community of about 137,000, located near the Oregon border, is predominantly white.
https://twitter.com/ShaiDeLuca/status/1 ... 9432749056Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib recently had dinner with a Palestinian activist who called Samir Kuntar — a terrorist who smashed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl after murdering her father — a "legendary Hezbollah martyr."
Yes, but unfortunately the same is not true for tlaib.dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:29 pm Seen on twitter:
https://twitter.com/ShaiDeLuca/status/1 ... 9432749056Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib recently had dinner with a Palestinian activist who called Samir Kuntar — a terrorist who smashed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl after murdering her father — a "legendary Hezbollah martyr."
Silver lining: I believe Kuntar is now too dead to cause any more trouble, or to have dinner with Tlaib.
dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:47 am Regarding the story that began as “MAGA students harass Native American man” and has turned into something else in light of new videos and information:
I have run into those Black Hebrew Israelites on several occasions. They are out there. One year, the mall where they were spewing their hatred hired a dj to drown them out, since they had a permit to shout (outside) and could not be evicted.
It must be nice to live in a world that does not recognize sin, or not know that sinners sin because they are sinners .... or not know we are all sinners .... to the core.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:49 amdualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:47 am Regarding the story that began as “MAGA students harass Native American man” and has turned into something else in light of new videos and information:
I have run into those Black Hebrew Israelites on several occasions. They are out there. One year, the mall where they were spewing their hatred hired a dj to drown them out, since they had a permit to shout (outside) and could not be evicted.
Re. the Matt Walsh post: Language has consequences, even among the hypocrites.
Haha, yes!Simonjester wrote: the maga hat kid has committed a face crime...
Orwell in 1984:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (incredulity when a victory was announced, for instance) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
Simonjester wrote: the maga hat kid has committed a face crime...
Orwell in 1984:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (incredulity when a victory was announced, for instance) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrat-e ... 1548369037Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing an annual wealth tax, attempting to combat inequality and raise trillions of dollars with a significant new levy on the very richest Americans.
Ms. Warren’s proposal would impose a 2% annual tax on household wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.
I was thinking more like, there are about 86,000 Americans with a net worth over 50 million. That's what the internet told me. I would be surprised if none of them were big political donors, on BOTH sides, and they're not super pumped about their taxes skyrocketing. I can't see people that rich, at that level, rolling over and taking it like a bitch.dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:32 pm Unlikely, I guess? The article mentions Obama-era proposals that didn’t make it, and these go beyond those suggestions.
But, anything can happen. And of course, those with $50 million are nothing to cry over. It would set a dangerous precedent, though, and perhaps that would be enough to get some citizens thinking about exit plans. Oof, wait, we have an exit tax.
Right, that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. (I’m only being half-facetious). Lawyers dominate how much control..lawyers have, and the rich control taxes.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:51 pm I was thinking more like, there are about 86,000 Americans with a net worth over 50 million. That's what the internet told me. I would be surprised if none of them were big political donors, on BOTH sides, and they're not super pumped about their taxes skyrocketing. I can't see people that rich, at that level, rolling over and taking it like a bitch.
Swamp-power, baby!
Exactly. Isn't this how the AMT started? Especially since I suspect the way this would evolve is that people will quickly realize that taxing net worth annually is a practical impossibility, and they'll limit it to financial accounts. Since that would reduce the amount exposed to the tax, they'll lower the threshold. This would be easy to do at any time, plus would happen automatically over the years due to inflation.MangoMan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:47 pmOf course, they say $50M now, but how long before it's $1M? I mean, if you're an underemployed, entitled socialist it's still unfair that someone has more than they do.sophie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:13 pm Well, at long last it's happened:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrat-e ... 1548369037Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing an annual wealth tax, attempting to combat inequality and raise trillions of dollars with a significant new levy on the very richest Americans.
Ms. Warren’s proposal would impose a 2% annual tax on household wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.
Won't it be fun when the IRS auditor has to pay a house call and figure out if that painting is really an original Picasso or just a copy, and how much to value a box of Cuban cigars, an antique car, handknit sweaters, and your wine collection. As in...I don't know what Elizabeth Warren is taking but I want some. Maybe it's those CBD candies in the grocery checkout line.
Same thing with the taxing of SS benefits. By not indexing these things to inflation it's obviously going to effect more and more people over time and I have to believe they weren't so stupid as to not know this when the law was passed. In other words it was an intended consequence. I'll be starting both SS and taking my first RMD this year and I've figured that the RMD will be just about enough to pay the tax on the SS. So you really have to hand it to the crooks in Washington.sophie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:42 amExactly. Isn't this how the AMT started? Especially since I suspect the way this would evolve is that people will quickly realize that taxing net worth annually is a practical impossibility, and they'll limit it to financial accounts. Since that would reduce the amount exposed to the tax, they'll lower the threshold. This would be easy to do at any time, plus would happen automatically over the years due to inflation.MangoMan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:47 pmOf course, they say $50M now, but how long before it's $1M? I mean, if you're an underemployed, entitled socialist it's still unfair that someone has more than they do.sophie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:13 pm Well, at long last it's happened:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrat-e ... 1548369037
Won't it be fun when the IRS auditor has to pay a house call and figure out if that painting is really an original Picasso or just a copy, and how much to value a box of Cuban cigars, an antique car, handknit sweaters, and your wine collection. As in...I don't know what Elizabeth Warren is taking but I want some. Maybe it's those CBD candies in the grocery checkout line.
Likely there would end up being some discussion of how much money people need for retirement. It seems kind of specious to mandate that we fund our own retirements, then institute a tax on that pot of savings. I wonder how annuities and pensions would be treated under a wealth tax law? Seems an easy way to dodge the tax if they're not included. So is physical gold held privately BTW.