Members Stevetemp Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Uppercase is here, thread is done. There will be no more reasonable discussion.The HCPP tr:olls have manifested. I can't seem to keep track of people like I should....sometimes people PM me and "pssst..you know you're arguing with a troll right? It's making you look stupid". I'm like...I don't know or remember ANYTHING about this person. I just have very bad memory for names and M.O.s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members la0tsu Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 So you get taxed on the $5000 actual gain from your investment (as well you should, im not against that) -- and you were already taxed on the $10,000 money or investment 'somewhere' before you invested it in the marketYes, you are taxed on the 10,000 initially as some form of income (unless it's a gift, in which case it falls below the 13,000 taxability threshold, so no tax due), but that 10,000 is only taxed once. It is not subject to a second tax. You have to have some incentive for people to take hard earned money and risk it, im sorry but you do Why? Generally, there is an accepted trade-off in investing: The more risky the investment, the larger the potential gains. If the expected returns don't justify the risk, why is that the problem of anyone other than the person who made the bad investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gary Cohn Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Yes, you are taxed on the 10,000 initially as some form of income (unless it's a gift, in which case it falls below the 13,000 taxability threshold, so no tax due), but that 10,000 is only taxed once. It is not subject to a second tax.Why? Generally, there is an accepted trade-off in investing: The more risky the investment, the larger the potential gains. If the expected returns don't justify the risk, why is that the problem of anyone other than the person who made the bad investment? Because it creates an ugly {censored}ing gridlock in the private equity and angel investing world. Used to be, people would throw cash at ideas just to see. The penalty for failure wasn't so bad- it was there, but manageable. Now, angel investors only want huge, quick paying, low risk investments (doesn't everyone?) and they'll sit it out until that whale comes along. I can't blame them, it wouldn't be so bad if banks would start taking chances and investing in entrepreneurs but everything you need to know about our economy is right there. If banks don't have confidence in the market to support an idea- the private guys sure aren't going to either. Which causes this quicksand pit of innovation and forward movement. Can't create jobs without capital. Can't get capital in an uncertain market. Can't grow jobs unless business is growing, etc. That's where we are right now. If we get 4 more years of Prasident Obama, the "powers that be" will sit out another 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thefyn Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Its all some people deserves.Most of what these people post are thinly veiled passive aggressive snide remarks, and I will respond as such.And when someone post such stupendous stupidity, I will facepalm it. Bull{censored}. You always talk {censored} without debating anything to back yourself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Bull{censored}. You always talk {censored} without debating anything to back yourself up. I wonder if I look into his history how many facepalm posts I'll find Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Oh...so apparently Liberals are better people...somehow...then Conservatives. Interesting! I've found a different way to describe the two in my travels. Liberals are idealists.....who think the government is best suited to take care of people, the bigger the better without regard on how to pay for it. Conservatives generally tend to wonder if a large bureaucracy is really the best way...and how is gonna get paid for? YMMV..just commenting from speaking to people...and we have left and right wingers here at work. Hardly ANY moderates. Oh...yeah...Conservatives also hate The Poor,The Young, The Old, all brown-skinned people. Yeah MMV. From what I've experienced liberals are more willing to allow the government to help the lower income while conservatives want to leave that up to the church. For the liberals it means that the lower incomes get the help they need regardless of ideological considerations, for the conservatives it means WASPs only, no black/brown/gay/different. Republicans I've notices like to believe that their thoughts are founded in reality and Democrats are dreamers/idealists. Unfortunately both sides are guilty of this, Dems want the gov to pay for things but are aware that we need to tax to do so (reality)...Reps want the gov to increase military spending, keep gays from marrying and people from having abortions, increase police forces/law enforcement and do it with little to no taxes (idealist). I believe that the communities are best suited to take care of the people, by extension I believe that the Federal Gov is suited/capable of taking care of the bottom rung and the bottom rung only. For the rest of us it's on us...but if we fall off the ladder I believe the Gov should be there to make sure I don't die/starve to death. People on the other side from me believe that the government shouldn't help anyone but only supply infrastructure. Welfare/helping your fellow man is strictly a Church responsibility for those who think like they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uppercasenoises Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 lets keep it real - you cant just make some vague assertion and call it a "fact", at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Social conservatism is a detriment to a free society. That is a fact, not an opinion. Thankfully, social liberalism has won every battle against social conservatism in America, so far. If social liberalism failed at every turn, African Americans would still be slaves. Nobody in their right mind can claim that slavery is good for a free society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Social conservatism is a detriment to a free society. That is a fact, not an opinion.Thankfully, social liberalism has won every battle against social conservatism in America, so far. It's been close in some cases though. I do not like that the Republicans believe that it's a viable option to amend the Constitution of this great nation to define marriage and strictly between one man and one woman and want the issue debated on a national level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uppercasenoises Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's been close in some cases though. I do not like that the Republicans believe that it's a viable option to amend the Constitution of this great nation to define marriage and strictly between one man and one woman and want the issue debated on a national level. Don't define them as "Republicans" - that's too much of a broad stroke. What we're really focusing on is the social conservative faction within the Republican party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Social conservatism is a detriment to a free society. That is a fact, not an opinion.Thankfully, social liberalism has won every battle against social conservatism in America, so far. If social liberalism failed at every turn, African Americans would still be slaves. Nobody in their right mind can claim that slavery is good for a free society. If you honestly believe all behavior should be loosely reigned, if at all, then you must cede that discipline or boundaries of any kind are an impediment to society, and as such, values of any kind should never be spoken of or even advocated for in any manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uppercasenoises Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 should be loosely reigned, if at all, then you must cede that discipline or boundaries of any kind are an impediment to society, and as such, values of any kind should never be spoken of or even advocated for in any manner. This is where you are wrong. Gay marriage does not violate anyone's rights. Interracial marriage does not violate anyone's rights. Other behaviors, such as pedophilia, must be kept illegal because a person's rights are violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 250k and below being middle class sounds about right. With a 250K salary a person can live VERY comfortably, but they're not exactly rich. I think one of the problems we currently having is people are constantly lowering the standard of what "middle class" is. $250 is definitely on the upper side of middle class, but yeah, it is still part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 This is where you are wrong. Gay marriage does not violate anyone's rights. Interracial marriage does not violate anyone's rights. Other behaviors, such as pedophilia, must be kept illegal because a person's rights are violated. Thanks for taking my bait Social liberalism, in the most absolute sense, has no inherent limit, and as such leaves open infinite possibilities. You cant just pick & choose aspects you like best about something and lump it into whatever ideology you prefer for your own convenience. Now that youve proven you really dont understand the concepts of which you speak, kindly go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hardtail Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 lol, you know you're a good troll when posting facts is still considered trolling. the so called FACT that liberals are better people than conservatives negates your premise and you are trolling for a response. I'll just give you a little one ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Don't define them as "Republicans" - that's too much of a broad stroke. What we're really focusing on is the social conservative faction within the Republican party. Well, it's republican as defined by mass media. The Republican presidential debates covered the topic, whether they're RINOs or not is up to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uppercasenoises Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Thanks for taking my bait Social liberalism, in the most absolute sense, has no inherent limit, and as such leaves open infinite possibilities. You cant just pick & choose aspects you like best about something and lump it into whatever ideology you prefer for your own convenience. Now that youve proven you really dont understand the concepts of which you speak, kindly go away. Social liberalism stops when a person's rights are directly affected. You know, the liberalism part that deals with...oh, I don't know...liberty? Two gay people getting married does not directly infringe on anyone's rights. Pedophilia directly affects the rights of the affected child(ren). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uppercasenoises Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 the so called FACT that liberals are better people than conservatives negates your premise and you are trolling for a response. I'll just give you a little one ... Not liberals/conservatives, but specifically social liberals and social conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Thanks for taking my bait Social liberalism, in the most absolute sense, has no inherent limit, and as such leaves open infinite possibilities. You cant just pick & choose aspects you like best about something and lump it into whatever ideology you prefer for your own convenience. Now that youve proven you really dont understand the concepts of which you speak, kindly go away. But the real world isn't about absolutes. Social conservatism, in the most absolute sense, would deny the use of fire. Your argument makes you sound less than intelligent. Society adapts. Social conservatives adapt too. They all have a different view of "the good ole days" but they mostly don't go clear back to the dawn of society. Sure, some conservatives would love to see any minority and women denied the right to vote as well as many of the other things that our country has progressed through over the last century but in 50 years those will be done deals and the "conservatives" will have moved on to the issues we're dealing with now. IMO, conservatives are basically fearful people who look around and see the world as broken. They look back at the "leave it to beaver" days and think "man, if it was just like that still things would be just fine" and that becomes their world view. Liberals on the other hand look around the world and they see the world as broken. They think "{censored}... Whatever we're doing isn't working so we better try something different" and that becomes their world view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Booker Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 I wonder if I look into his history how many facepalm posts I'll find Its not my fault this forum is full of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Booker Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Bull{censored}. You always talk {censored} without debating anything to back yourself up. Just like you idiot. You never have a point other than RON PAUL, and like a retarded little school child you keep on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 the so called FACT that liberals are better people than conservatives negates your premise and you are trolling for a response. I'll just give you a little one ... Look back at any point in the last 100 years in our country. Forget political parties and look at policy. The liberals are always the ones fighting for equality and social change. The conservatives are always fighting for the status quo. That's just the way it is. It just happens that in many cases such as civil rights and voting rights and whatnot the conservatives have been on the wrong side of the argument. That's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Thanks for taking my bait Social liberalism, in the most absolute sense, has no inherent limit, and as such leaves open infinite possibilities. You cant just pick & choose aspects you like best about something and lump it into whatever ideology you prefer for your own convenience. Now that youve proven you really dont understand the concepts of which you speak, kindly go away. not sure about that... Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights.[1][2] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[3] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[4] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism You might be confusing the term "libertine" with "social liberalism." If you want to define social liberalism in the context of the discussion though it would be at it most basic form the "freedom to do what you want so long as you're not infringing on the rights of others." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Look back at any point in the last 100 years in our country. Forget political parties and look at policy. The liberals are always the ones fighting for equality and social change. The conservatives are always fighting for the status quo. That's just the way it is. It just happens that in many cases such as civil rights and voting rights and whatnot the conservatives have been on the wrong side of the argument. That's a fact. Imma gonna surprise a few people and leave this here. Just the fact that I know about it should impress a few of ya. http://www.amazon.com/Thank-The-Liberals-Saving-America/dp/1401940544 I admit I haven't read it YET!...but I understand that it is NOT a "bash conservatives" book....that he actually shows how everyone does work together. I believe Obama should read this book too, because you can't just bully and whine your way to co-operation. Edit: This book also shows how you are WRONG Mr. Madryan. Colmes claims it wouldn't'a happened without conservative co-operation. FACT. So....go ahead and gloat...to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ***1776*** Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Look back at any point in the last 100 years in our country. Forget political parties and look at policy. The liberals are always the ones fighting for equality and social change. The conservatives are always fighting for the status quo. That's just the way it is. It just happens that in many cases such as civil rights and voting rights and whatnot the conservatives have been on the wrong side of the argument. That's a fact. No offense but your talking out of your ass on this one, i cant take this 'moral highground bull{censored}' you keep preaching in this thread, its not true!-- Want a HISTORICAL and BIG FACT? Republicans voted FOR (thats yea) the civil rights act of 1964 in BIGGER numbers than the Democrats (who voted nay), here are the facts for 1 of the biggest and important pieces of legislation of the past century By party... The original House version:[16] Democratic Party: 152 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members madryan Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Democratic Party: 153 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.