Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $44,545
50%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 50% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by AntiScumbag

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 9:28:57 PM PST · 77 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    OK. No problem. Start ridiculing me anytime you wish.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 9:23:53 PM PST · 76 of 77
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You are such a target-rich environment of economic illiteracy, I hardly know where to start.

    How about here: “Before 1980 we had trade surpluses.”

    Well, no, that’s false, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We ran trade deficits in ‘71, ‘72, 74, ‘76 and every year thereafter.

    See: www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

    But, so what? Who cares? For every trade deficit, there was an investment surplus. Remember that accounting identity thing? Well, probably not, you’re a bit of an idiot.

    And here: “A 20% tariff on imported manufactured goods wouldn’t impoverish anyone.”

    The issue isn’t whether anyone will be impoverished.

    Some number of people would be directly benefited. Those benefits would be more than offset by the much larger loss by the society in general due to higher costs and lost opportunities.

    The benefits are easy to identify and count. X people made Y money, which is more than the Z money they used to make (pre-tariff.)

    The costs are diffuse. Everyone suffers higher costs, generally. Some people aren’t employed who would have been or wind up working for less than they would have otherwise. Some companies never get started at all.

    This is the classic screen you protectionists hide behind. A few people directly benefit. The rest of us get screwed.

    Marx? He was an idiot. Don’t waste your time. That’s on a par with your previous lame “ass munch” attempt at an insult. Poor form, dude.

    “There is a direct correlation between the income tax, progressivism and elimination of tariffs.”

    Well, that’s nice, but correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you don’t understand even that much, I’m wasting my time. Income taxes started out as tiny percentages on very high incomes only. They replaced clumsy tariffs as revenue raisers. Yeah, the a-hole liberals got ahold of it and went crazy. 92% (which nobody paid) got rolled back to about 40%, which very few pay. It’s still too high because the government is too big. Give it a rest, we ain’t going back to tariffs.

    Bernie Madoff? OK, it’s clear that you don’t understand even the rudiments of accounting, either.

    You’re both an economic and accounting illiterate and ignoramus.

    I wish you good luck because you’re gonna need it. A lot of it.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 7:51:40 PM PST · 72 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    So, by refusing to respond, you admit that you have no meaningful rejoinder to anything I’ve said.

    That’s OK, you can go peddle your nonsense on some other thread.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 7:45:08 PM PST · 70 of 77
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    Ass munches?

    Seriously?

    Dude, you and protectionist buddy Puny need to get out of the 1800s.

    Contrary to your delusions, free trade has NOTHING to do with budget deficits, they’re a function of profligate government spending, which is not a function of private trade, free or not.

    Free trade has NOTHING to do with income taxes, “ever increasing” or not.

    Free trade has NOTHING to do with “imbalanced trade” there really is no such thing. I already explained the accounting identity in our balance of payments.

    You and Puny seem to be impervious to facts. Must be fun to imagine that you’re living in the 1800s.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 7:28:22 PM PST · 66 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    And you still won’t (and can’t) deny that you’re nothing but a protectionist, willing to impoverish everyone over your fatuity.

    Unseemly? OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. The readers here can figure out for themselves who might be unseemly.

    I need say no more, your rubbish has been refuted without meaningful rejoinder from you. If you have one please serve it up, I’ll be happy to send it to the same pile where the rest of your BS resides.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 7:12:24 PM PST · 64 of 77
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    I don’t know, what is they say about people without any sense of humor whatsoever?

    Oh, sorry, obviously I’m asking the wrong guy.

    Maybe that puny guy knows, people were funnier around 1800.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 6:47:31 PM PST · 59 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    Well, you certainly are an economic illiterate.

    And clearly a protectionist, you admit as much and you think it’s really, really smart stuff. According to you, the British empire would have survived to this day with a few more tariffs and a little less of that nasty free world trade.

    And tariffs should work forever, since that’s what we started with as a system of taxation.

    Ya know, tariffs are a very blunt tax instrument, a favorite of Luddites and proponents of mercantilism everywhere, but I understand that you absolutely love and adore tariffs.

    If you want to go with a consumption tax, I would agree with you — impose an X% tax on all consumption, regardless of the source of the product — and eliminate all income taxes and tariffs.

    But that’s not what you want. You want protectionist tariffs in all their rabble-rousing and revenue-raising glory. Until they impoverish everyone, everywhere.

    Say, what do you think of the new Florida tariff on Georgia peaches?

    And the retaliatory Georgia tariff on Florida oranges?

    And the other 50,000 tariffs on interstate trade items that the 50 state legislatures dreamed up after the union dissolved?

    Inquiring minds want to know what a protectionist from the 1800s thinks.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 6:00:02 PM PST · 58 of 77
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    Read much?

    I didn’t blame the depression on Smoot-Hawley, although it was certainly an aggravating factor. One of many.

    What’s your point?

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 12:43:47 PM PST · 51 of 77
    AntiScumbag to georgiarat

    Trump? Luck?

    Yes, maybe because he inherited it. And he certainly understands real estate and casinos and how to run over minority shareholders in a bankruptcy action. But not much else.

    Assume anything you want about me, I’m talking about Trump. Which has nothing to do with me or anyone else.

    I’m sorry that you don’t understand how many US jobs trade has created over the last few decades. You seem to have a very foggy understanding of the US economy.

    Something along the lines of “They took our jobs!” straight out of South Park. You actually sound like a natural supporter of Bernie. Those international corporations are all very evil, you know.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 11:47:26 AM PST · 49 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Hawthorn

    I agree with you, Trump is mostly a lot of bluster and hot air. If he winds up being the nominee I hope that he’s educable. We’ll see.

    No matter what, he can’t possibly be worse than anything the Democrats can put up.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 11:35:47 AM PST · 48 of 77
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    Actually, and unsurprisingly, you’re wrong. What a shock.

    US exports collapsed from about 6 billion to about 2 billion, ‘29 to ‘32. See: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=9

    Table 1.1.3.

    That’s not less than 4%, that’s about 7% of a 57 billion economy in ‘33. About 4% of the pre-depression economy of ‘29. All by itself, that’s a nasty recession.

    Why do you find it surprising that retaliatory tariffs resulted in a collapse of world trade and economic activity in general?

    Especially when piled on top of bad monetary policy after a decade of growth.

    Your quoted shrinking of the US trade deficit is also wrong, it went from .4 billion to .1 billion. Which means what? We were buying less stuff. Not good.

    In any case, we don’t “lose” anything by any trade deficit, it just means that those durn furriners have more money to buy other stuff. Every dime of which has to be denominated in US dollars.

    You know, to buy US assets. Surely you’ve heard of a thing called the accounting identity. It all adds up to zero. Trade deficit plus investment surplus = zero.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 8:05:39 AM PST · 44 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    Right. I should always remember that I’m dealing with total economic illiterates like you here.

    You said, somewhere in your fog of BS that “Tariffs should be used to protect American industries.”

    Yeah, that’s a great idea if you’re a socialist like our friend Bernie. Or a protectionist. Sorry, I repeat myself.

    You seem to think a few people should be employed at the expense of everyone else. No matter to you, everyone else only pays a few nickels and dimes here and there to preserve some jobs that shouldn’t exist.

    No problem, right? Everyone else will never notice those extra nickels and dimes, right?

    Never mind that when you add it all up, we’re all less better off in total.

    But, that sounds just great to you, right?

    Since you’ll never admit that your proposed tariff policy makes us less well-off as a whole, there’s nothing more to be said.

    Other than to suggest that you might want to read some Ricardo on comparative advantage. We do some things better than others. You may not, but the society as a whole does.

  • Donald Trump: Here's the one area where Bernie Sanders and I agree [WITH CHINA ON TPP]

    02/08/2016 5:01:41 AM PST · 20 of 77
    AntiScumbag to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    Well, it’s certainly a good thing that we haven’t been governed for the last 100 years by morons who think that high tariffs are a good idea.

    You do understand that tariffs are just taxes by another name, right? And that they destroy trade, right?

    If so, you also must also admit that Trump understands absolutely nothing about basic economics.

    If he’s the nominee, we can only hope that someone gives him some better economic advice somewhere along the way.

  • COMEX Registered Gold Inventories Plummet 73% In One Day

    02/02/2016 4:45:57 PM PST · 18 of 18
    AntiScumbag to VerySadAmerican

    Hate?

    None at all. After many years of this sort of stupid BS, I’m just tired of morons posting total junk as if it meant something.

    You know, as if they had a clue about what they’re yammering on about.

    They don’t. I object and let them know what I think. Simple as that. And I don’t need your or anyone elses approval to do so.

    I’m not running an investment seminar. I just point out really stupid stuff now and then. Other people can draw their own conclusions, good, bad or indifferent.

  • COMEX Registered Gold Inventories Plummet 73% In One Day

    02/02/2016 8:17:36 AM PST · 14 of 18
    AntiScumbag to EBH

    Got any more totally useless, meaningless stuff to post?

    Do you have even the first clue about categories of exchange inventories of gold or silver or what they mean?

    Sorry, that was rhetorical, obviously you don’t.

    I’ve been commenting on totally stupid junk posts like this for years. People post this garbage and babble on about it and then, lo and behold, nothing happens and you and your ill-informed ilk all slink away after making fools of yourselves.

    Please stop it. You’re wasting everyones time. Not to mention that you make yourself look like an idiot.

  • Heard of the Baltic Dry Index? Analysts warn 70% crash of key world trade barometer...

    01/16/2016 1:49:44 PM PST · 43 of 43
    AntiScumbag to Paine in the Neck

    Holy crap.

    20 goofy responses before there was any semblance of sanity?

    Sure are a lot of totally clueless people around here.

    Then 20 more silly posts full of the same uninformed junk. No doubt there will be more.

    The Baltic Dry Index is now mainly a function of previous overbuilding, and has been for some years.

    The shippers do it every time. When the last of their laid-up hulls are scrapped, dry shipping prices will recover.

    We’re getting there, but it will be a while. Longer than most think. Another year or two.

    All of which has absolutely nothing — NOTHING — to do with shipping volumes or demand in general.

    Many more of the current bunch of dry cargo shippers will be bankrupt or closer to it before dry rates recover.

    Of course, that will never stop anyone with no idea of what they’re talking about from spouting their usual “OMG the sky is falling” garbage.

    To them, ignorance is bliss. Too bad it’s also meaningless.

  • 'Tax Wall Street': Trump Pledges After Stock Market Selloff (huh?)

    01/11/2016 1:21:39 AM PST · 81 of 81
    AntiScumbag to BobL

    So, Bob, you have nothing to say about HFT after your silly HFT claims have been picked apart and demolished in great detail?

    Instead, now, you’re all “fired up” about a fictional movie made by a socialist and economic illiterate (sorry, I repeat myself)?

    And you actually think it’s “entirely accurate”?

    You don’t seem to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, so I’m not surprised that you love the movie. Problem is that it’s total baloney. For instance, the NY Post, here:

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/the-big-short-is-a-28-million-campaign-ad-for-bernie-sanders/

    provides a good summation of the garbage you’re so excited and “fired up” about.

    Read some Peter Wallison if you want to know what really happened.

    He wrote an entire book — “Hidden in Plain Sight” — about it, never mind 93 pages of dissent to the white-washed Congressional report (run by Democrats at the time) on the ‘08 problem, summarized here:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/hidden-plain-sight-qa-peter-wallison-2008-financial-crisis-might-happen/

    Here’s a review of Wallison’s book in the WSJ:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-hidden-in-plain-sight-by-peter-j-wallison-1424820768

    Bottom line is the US government, as in Fannie/Freddie plus CRA plus ever-increasing targets for marginal (read junk) lending from HUD (thank you Billy-Jeff and Andrew Cuomo in particular) and you wind up with trillions in crap mortgages owned or securitized directly by the feds.

    Fannie/Freddie wound up with about 70% of all sub-prime and other junk mortgages. Which, as a (totally pitiful) category, were HALF of all US mortgages.

    Oops. Wallison uses numbers generated by Edward Pinto, former Fannie chief credit officer to prove his thesis.

    The private lender sector only did what the feds encouraged, goaded, demanded and required them to do over many years.

    Borrowers only did what the feds wanted them to do — borrow.

    Here’s a piece from The Atlantic in 2011 where they interview Wallison about the whole deal:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

    The movie is a sad joke. The feds are at fault, as in 100%. I don’t expect that Trump understands that, nor does it really matter if he does. Perhaps he’ll have someone around him who can clue him in at some point.

    The idea is that we don’t repeat the whole deal, which we probably will seeing as how Fannie (still run by Democrats) just announced, a few days ago, new, really stupid and, of course, much looser mortgage rules.

    Sort of a new version of sub-prime but by a different name. That’s in addition to what the FHA has now been doing for the last 8 years. The FHA, like Fannie, has pitifully small reserves against future losses.

    Kinda like Barney Frank is still around telling us to continue to “roll the dice a little bit more” with Fannie/Freddie as Barney said back in 2003.

    Hey, what could possibly go wrong 5 or 10 or 15 years from now with a new program of junk mortgages available to any bozo who can sign his or her name to a pile of documents?

    Reminds me of NINJA loans from 10 years ago — no income, no job, no assets. Remember those?

    According to your goofy movie the federal government never did anything wrong. Nope, the feds had nothing to do with the problem. Nope, nothing to see there, it must have been the evil private sector, yeah, that’s it, it’s all the fault of greedy capitalists, just move along.

    You may need to re-examine all of your (and the movie’s) highly mistaken premises.

    I doubt you will, you’d have to read every word of every link I’ve provided. Not likely to happen, since you already know everything.

    Well, other than the stuff, HFT for instance where you’ve already been demonstrated to know absolutely nothing.

    Perhaps some others will read the links and gain some insight into something that’s really very poorly understood generally. Which is unfortunate considering that federal government policy has a big influence on home values and thus net worth for a lot of people.

  • 'Tax Wall Street': Trump Pledges After Stock Market Selloff (huh?)

    01/10/2016 2:21:07 PM PST · 79 of 81
    AntiScumbag to Jane Long

    Wherever do you get this “tax-free” junk?

    There’s no such thing, unless you own tax-free municipal bonds, which have nothing to do with hedge funds.

    Organized as a general partnership (typical hedge fund organization) the gains of the general partner have the same tax characteristics as the gains of the limited partners.

    It’s called a carried interest. That is, the limited partners own XYZ (whatever group of securities or commodities or whatever that may be) and agree to pay 20% (or whatever %) of the appreciation on XYZ over the course of a year to the general partner as a performance fee.

    No performance? Performance fee is zero.

    Positive performance? Performance fee is 20% of the increase in value.

    The taxation of the gain on the “carried interest” is subject to the same schedule of rates as the gains are taxed to the limited partners.

    The manager (general partner) probably also charges 1-2% per year to run the money, regardless of any gains.

    The annual charges are subject to regular earned income rates, the performance fees depend on the asset(s) involved.

    Ain’t none of them “tax-free.”

  • 'Tax Wall Street': Trump Pledges After Stock Market Selloff (huh?)

    01/10/2016 1:48:18 PM PST · 77 of 81
    AntiScumbag to BobL

    This is funny stuff.

    Why is it that people like you (and many others) on this thread feel compelled to spout off about things that you know nothing of and don’t understand at all?

    High frequency trading (I’ll call it “HFT”) has ZERO effect on investors. An outfit doing HFT buys AND sells (or sells and buys) the same security in a matter of microseconds. So what?

    Any HFT trade is a net zero — they bought and sold, or sold and bought — in a flash. No change in their net position. All they did was contribute liquidity to the market. If they’re happy making .001 or .0001 or .00001 or .000001 per share, more power to them.

    Turns out that the profitability of those trades isn’t nearly what it used to be. Gosh, who’d a thunk it, there’s a lot less capital and effort devoted to it now than previously.

    They can place orders to their heart’s content, all orders contribute to liquidity which wouldn’t otherwise be there.

    It’s not a tax of any kind on anyone. An HFT trading operation is just another market participant and takes on risk just like anyone else does when a trade is made.

    I, like most investors place my orders at a limit price. Someone else is either willing to sell it to me at that price or not. Or buy it from me, if I’m a seller. All that’s got exactly and absolutely nothing to do with HFT. Except to the extent that an HFT order might be on the other side of my order, which is fine with me or any other buyer or seller.

    My orders (and all orders) are also executed in microseconds. Just like the HFT guys.

    A ridiculous .25% tax on securities transactions wouldn’t just wipe out HFT, it would wipe out market makers (do you even know what they are or what they do?) and market liquidity in general.

    That’s not a good thing. Not for you. Not for me. Not for anyone.

    Instead of a typical .01 bid/ask spread on the average $70 Dow Jones Industrials stock, the spread would turn into 20 cents or so, enough to cover the .25% tax. With a lot fewer shares bid or offered on each side. When I say a lot fewer, I mean 90% fewer. Or worse.

    I guess very thin, much more volatile markets are OK with you. You seem to think that securities still trade in 1/8th point (12.5 cent) increments. And that it’s OK to severely impair liquidity and drive most trading off-shore, which is what would happen.

    Not to mention that 100% of this goofy tax would be entirely paid (to the extent anyone pays it at all) by the U.S. retail public. Do you also want to return to the days of fixed commission rates?

    I pay no more than 1 cent per share to buy or sell (which is actually very high, I’m just a retail investor with a mid 6-figure account.) That’s down from 100 times that back in the fixed commission rate days of the ‘60s. If I wanted to trade more frequently, I could easily trade for .1 to .2 cents per share. Or less.

    It’s unfortunate that you and others on this thread don’t know how markets actually operate and then sound like so many socialists when it comes to Wall Street.

    Tax ‘em! As if any such .25% transaction tax wouldn’t be paid but by a very few U.S. consumers. Wall Street only pays taxes on their net income. And “Wall Street” would shortly be located elsewhere in the world.

    This is not to say that I have a problem with Trump. He may know zero about economics and doesn’t really expect that any of his goofy tax/tariff/economic proposals will be enacted — maybe 10% of what he suggests, which would be bad enough — but I’d gladly vote for him over any commie/socialist Democrat (which is all of them.)

    Ted would be better, but I’ll happily take them in any combination.

  • UNBELIEVABLE Update - Oregon "Bundy Militia" Standoff - The Federal Prosecutor...

    01/04/2016 8:40:21 PM PST · 182 of 200
    AntiScumbag to semimojo

    C’mon, man, you can’t expect anyone here to understand and take account of facts, right? Knee-jerk reactions are always the order of the day, get with the program!

    There’s certainly a case to be made for no prosecution at all, but it WAS prosecuted, so that’s moot.

    Convictions were the result and the federal district judge tried to exercise some discretion to make the punishments fit the crimes. Good trick when the law says 5 years minimum, period. Sometimes even federal judges can’t do what they think is justice, they’re subject to appellate review.

    As you and I know, prosecutors can never appeal a not-guilty verdict, but they can certainly always appeal a sentence. And so a political hack did. And she won, as she should have, the original sentences were contrary to law.

    Anyone who wasn’t a political hack wouldn’t have bothered to appeal the sentences, but she was a hack and she did appeal and won so that’s moot, too.

    None of this may be “fair” but all of it was certainly entirely legal.

    People don’t like that? They need to change the law and/or who is carrying it out and enforcing it on federal courts.

    It’s actually funny that some are yapping about “double jeopardy.” Nobody was tried twice, they didn’t need to be, they were convicted the first time around.

    Post-conviction issues like an appeal of the sentence or any other appeals (usually by the convicted individual, not the prosecution) have nothing to do with “double jeopardy.”

    People who don’t know whereof they speak don’t know that and insist on spouting off as newly-minted lawyers in their own minds.

    In any case, complaining about it here accomplishes absolutely nothing.

    The people occupying the federal facility should just go home, they’ve made their point, such as it is. They’ve drawn attention to the whole deal. Beyond that, they have no support in any law and they know it, or should.

    There’s nothing else good that can result if they persist.

  • The Obamacare Scam Just Got A Lot Worse

    01/01/2016 8:02:07 PM PST · 47 of 55
    AntiScumbag to Aliska

    Well, the income and asset rules for food stamp and Medicaid benefits for every state are on-line.

    You can take it from there. Opinions don’t count. All that matters are investment amounts — one is either under or over the state’s limits and disclosed it or not.

    Good luck to you in any case. Sounds like it might be an uphill battle.

  • The Obamacare Scam Just Got A Lot Worse

    01/01/2016 5:54:37 PM PST · 40 of 55
    AntiScumbag to Aliska

    Re posts 27/28, you may think that you now “know that” but it’s not true. See post 34. “bitt” is ill-informed. “I read” something, when the difference between Medicare and Medicaid is confused or not understood is meaningless.

    Your comment about your daughter is interesting because she apparently has significant investment income. Your advice to her to “make sure” was well advised.

    She may not have actually done so — Medicaid AND food stamp programs in most states have very stringent asset limits, particularly on investments other than a homestead.

    Obviously, if someone has 25 or 50 or 100K in non-homestead investments, they obviously don’t need Medicaid or food stamps nor do they generally qualify for them.

    If she has investment assets in excess of any applicable limits for either program, she might be faced with demands for repayment in the future. Not a good thing.

    You might want to warn her to “make sure” again. If assets weren’t mentioned on any form signed under oath, it opens up the possibility of criminal prosecution if some prosecutor is out to make a name for themselves. A much worse thing than a mere demand for repayment.

  • The Obamacare Scam Just Got A Lot Worse

    01/01/2016 4:59:18 PM PST · 34 of 55
    AntiScumbag to bitt

    You’re confusing Medicaid with Medicare.

    Medicaid has eligibility limits, if assets larger than allowable are later discovered any given state may go after them, after the fact.

    Medicare (the feds are the sole payer of the benefits) only goes after people with personal injury settlements or payments when they were the primary payer of the bills but should have been a secondary payer.

    MediCAID is a state welfare with all of its associated rules, MediCARE is a federal “entitlement” qualified for by sufficient quarters of employment taxes paid. Two entirely different things.

  • The Obamacare Scam Just Got A Lot Worse

    01/01/2016 4:43:10 PM PST · 30 of 55
    AntiScumbag to cuban leaf; mosaicwolf

    From day one the IRS has not had any ability at all to collect any unpaid ACA “penalty” beyond what’s indicated as a refund due on the return. No lien arises nor can they garnish any amount due or levy on any asset.

    That’s it. The law was specifically written that way and will never change barring another socialist in the White House together with Democrat control of the House and the Senate.

  • Irwin Schiff, R.I.P.

    10/20/2015 2:56:33 AM PDT · 41 of 47
    AntiScumbag to DoughtyOne

    Wow. After reading this and other ridiculous Schiff threads, you have my sympathy.

    For putting up with miscellaneous idiots and those incapable of understanding simple facts. This board is chock full of morons who don’t get it. At all. Just like Irwin never did.

    One can think that a federal income tax is a bad idea. A terrible idea. I agree with that. So did Irwin.

    Problem is that it’s current law, period. And has been for 100 years.

    No federal judge has ever said otherwise. Until the law is changed, no federal judge ever will.

    Either you follow current law or potentially go to prison.

    Irwin filed returns based on his idiocy and went to prison not once, not twice, but three times because of it. And it was idiocy, there’s not a scintilla of legal justification behind his junk.

    In his final trial he represented himself. The usual big mistake. His pitiful last-ditch attempt to save himself in that trial was to claim that he was mentally ill and his rantings about federal taxes were all due to that.

    He probably was mentally ill, but he didn’t convince the judge. So, he got locked up for what turned out to be a well-deserved life sentence. And now he’s come out of prison feet-first.

    Irwin made a lot of money from the garbage books and other totally useless junk that he sold to his marks. Sorry, no refunds for the suckers.

    He had nothing but contempt for the many people who took his useless advice and also went to prison. Some for years. Ask Steven Swan and many others.

    He wrecked quite a few lives other than his own, including those of some of his true-believer employees and thought nothing of it.

    Good riddance to a useless scam artist.

  • Moody's downgrades CPS credit rating [ Chicago Public Schools ]

    03/07/2015 9:26:31 AM PST · 8 of 8
    AntiScumbag to george76
    Funny stuff.

    The financially illiterate Chicago Sun Times writer Maudlyne Ihejirika says "That rating applies to a total of $6.3 billion in outstanding debt held by Chicago Public Schools."

    Well, actually, no, Maudlyne. What you presumably meant to say, assuming that you have any idea whatsoever of what you are talking about (doubtful) was "That rating applies to a total of $6.3 billion in outstanding City of Chicago debt held by and owed to existing bondholders to pay for (stupid costs incurred by) CPS."

    CPS doesn't now and never has "held" (as in owned) a dime of that debt.

    It's also pretty clear that any Sun Times on-line editors are either equally financially illiterate or nonexistent.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/06/2015 5:09:06 PM PST · 42 of 42
    AntiScumbag to Right-wing Librarian

    So, after yet more attempts at diversion you can’t defend this common, convicted criminal.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/06/2015 11:43:54 AM PST · 40 of 42
    AntiScumbag to Right-wing Librarian

    Hovind can believe whatever ridiculous things he wants, I couldn’t care less.

    As for the Founders, you’ll recall there was this little thing about taxation without representation.

    But, good job of throwing up a blizzard of straw men. What else can you do when you can’t actually defend what amounts to a common, garden variety tax criminal.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/04/2015 6:54:20 PM PST · 38 of 42
    AntiScumbag to Right-wing Librarian

    Oh, I see.

    Any time some tax evader gets held to account, it’s a matter of keeping the government “off the backs of the people.”

    Wow. Who knew that merely invoking “the Constitution” is a free pass to endless criminal activity without consequence?

    Obviously you won’t mind at all if I evade a million or two in taxes, right?

    All against laws duly passed by a Constitutionally designated legislature, signed by a Constitutionally designated executive and upheld by Constitutionally designated courts.

    What could be simpler? Get that darned Constitutional government off my back, I’ve got cheating and evading to do!

    Bravo! You make really great nonsense arguments. They certainly suit my purposes as a potential tax cheater and evader. With myriad other possibilities.

    It’s good to know that you’re an anarchist in favor of all manner of cheating and illegality. Who needs those silly Constitutionally enacted laws? They’re just so many words on paper. I’m “people.” Get that stuff “off my back.”

    It must be great good fun to be an anarchist like you. Where do I sign up for your insipid philosophy? Do I have to subscribe to some theory that people and dinosaurs both existed 6,000 years ago? Or, can I go for something a little less goofy?

    Meanwhile, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to post an actual defense of tax evasion done in the name of religion or anything else. Why? Because no such defense exists.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/04/2015 6:58:38 AM PST · 36 of 42
    AntiScumbag to Mad Dawgg

    You are correct.

    If discovered, the IRS will jump on not just the owner(s,) but also any employee responsible for preparing/filing/paying 941s and the associated taxes. They, like an owner, are personally liable for any unpaid amounts. Oops.

    There are a number of tax-protestor cases where the “bookkeeper” also found their butt in a sling because their idiot employer wanted to play games. See Simkanin. His bookkeeper only avoided liability by cooperating and testifying about the scheme. Simkanin? He died in federal prison.

    Like you, I’ve signed and filed enough 941s to choke a couple of good-sized horses over the last 40 years. They are no joke.

    Small amounts due? Monthly deposits. Pay up. Larger amounts? Essentially five business days. Pay up. You paid your employees, now pay us the withheld amounts you didn’t pay them. Don’t/can’t pay? We can and will attack every single asset you have. And almost nothing is exempt from that attack.

    I used to run across small business people who thought it was a great way to float money for a while. A very bad idea. Pay your 941 taxes first, even before the rent on your business space.

    If you’re operating as a corp or LLC, your landlord generally can’t sue you personally, but the IRS (via the DoJ) can and will. Most of those people wound up closing after the IRS figured out that they weren’t being paid and weren’t likely to be paid.

    Hovind is a sort of tax-protestor — wrapped up in a bunch of religious hokus-pokus — but with even fewer active brain cells than most of that generally brain-dead group. His magic words don’t work any better than the legal incantations of the rest of the delusional TPs.

    He reminds me of Irwin Schiff (three-time federal tax convict) who might die in federal prison. Irwin is 87 with a release date that will make him 89 or 90.

    Or maybe he’ll get out at 90 and do something else stupid that will earn him his 4th stretch of federal prison time for tax offenses. Hey, I’ll be out when I’m 110! Keep fighting, tax patriots, never mind that my theories are total nonsense!

    And Ed and Elaine Brown, both of whom are two-time federal tax convicts with nasty weapons charges for good measure and who will certainly die in federal prison. Ed is 72 with a release date making him age 102, Elaine is 74 with a release date making her age 101.

    Their forfeited properties, which are nominally worth 500K+ can’t be sold at auction because nobody is dumb enough to bid on stuff that can’t be inspected and may have bombs and other stuff on them. The sort of stuff where it’s impossible to find someone willing to do demolition. Good move, Ed. Pure genius. Yeah, you won. Think about that as you rot in prison.

    As Hovind contemplates his upcoming trial and any possible future trials, he might be well advised to remember that there is no federal parole — you serve 85% of the time if you behave and up to 100% if you don’t.

    Of course, he already knows this from serving his current 10-year sentence. Yet, that hasn’t stopped him from acting on ways to pile up even more years.

    The idiocy is truly astounding.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/04/2015 1:35:34 AM PST · 34 of 42
    AntiScumbag to Right-wing Librarian

    Who (other than you) has said anything at all about the Constitution?

    This dunce was convicted of failing to file quarterly employer tax returns, not to mention failing to withhold and timely pay over to the feds the appropriate income and FICA taxes. You know, form 941. Every employer in the country is required to file them. And pay the tax due. Promptly.

    He’s not some penny-ante tax cheat, his cheating on employee taxes that he never withheld or paid over is why he owes over 400K.

    He compounded his problem by paying his employees in cash and by structuring the withdrawals of the cash used to pay those employees so as to avoid reporting of any cash withdrawals.

    In short, the guy is nothing but a tax cheat who tried to hide his tax liabilities. Apparently because he thinks he’s special and doesn’t have to follow well-settled tax or other laws.

    Now, his latest problem is attempting (for no valid reason) to cloud the titles on his seized properties and contempt of federal court.

    Once his upcoming trial is over, there may yet be another one in his future. Why? It’s a pretty good bet that he didn’t file personal income tax returns for a number of years, and if, as is likely, there hasn’t yet been a formal tax assessment made for those years, the statute of limitations for any criminal liability for failure to file and/or pay and/or evasion for those years hasn’t even started to run.

    On this entire thread, there is no defense of this idiot, only whining about Sh!tlery and Sharpton and Lerner and Koskinen. There is no defense because none is possible. As for the assorted Dem tax cheats and other miscellaneous Dem criminals, I quite agree that they too belong in federal prison and it couldn’t happen soon enough, but they’ve got absolutely nothing to do with this particular tax cheat.

    I really don’t know why anyone would waste even a minute on this convicted fraud and huckster.

  • Should Creation Teacher Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison?

    03/02/2015 8:18:27 AM PST · 32 of 42
    AntiScumbag to hecticskeptic

    Smell test?

    Yup, he stinks pretty bad.

    He’s sitting in federal prison because he was convicted of 12 counts of failing to file quarterly payroll tax returns and 45 counts of (cash) structuring. Plus obstructing tax laws. He owes 400+K of federal taxes of various types.

    Those are facts. Doesn’t matter whether anything passes any “smell test” or not.

    His upcoming trial has to do with trying to interfere with the collection of what he owes.

    Most people understand the first rule of holes — when you’re in one, stop digging.

    Hovind, apparently not being very bright, doesn’t seem to grasp that simple concept.

    After being whacked with 10 years, he then proceeds to cause stuff to be filed which might cloud the title on nine properties that are in the process of being seized to pay his tax debts, in direct violation of a court order not to do any such thing.

    That’s called mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, not to mention criminal contempt of court. More federal felonies.

    Which is why he will probably spend many more years in prison.

    In fact, the federal sentencing guidelines suggest that, if convicted on this batch of charges, the additional time to be served could be as much as 30 years. Not to mention that the feds probably haven’t exhausted the stack of stuff he could be criminally charged with. At the rate he’s digging his hole, he might be lucky to get out of prison while he’s still alive.

    See? It’s not at all hard to comment when you know a few facts about the topic at hand.

  • Why Mike Huckabee’s Cornpone Politics Drives Me Crazy — And Will Never Work

    01/30/2015 11:33:07 PM PST · 46 of 51
    AntiScumbag to Vendome

    How times change. As they should. Chucklebee was an FR favorite back in ‘04. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1292246/posts for instance. 750 posts.

    Before he turned out to be nothing but an actual, real, live RINO and a joke. Tax. Tax. Spend. Spend. God, Grits and whatever cornpone crapola gets you by.

    If his hideous attempt at a book-promo/campaign this time around crashed and burned yesterday, it wouldn’t be soon enough.

  • Anti-mine extremist ‘Krow’ goes off on judge who sentenced her

    01/27/2015 6:20:10 AM PST · 35 of 45
    AntiScumbag to Diana in Wisconsin

    Too bad the judge didn’t throw away the key.

    50 years ago, I used to go fishing with my grandfather on the Iron River about 50 miles west of Iron County. He and a few other guys had a hunting/fishing place (a really old farmhouse) on a property that the river ran through, a mile or so from Lake Superior. Very rustic. No plumbing.

    And the Iron River ran really, really RED in the spring. Looked like a river of rust.

    Gosh, think maybe there’s some iron in the area?

    Taconite mining is a big deal on the north shore in Minnesota, so it’s about time somebody found something on the south shore to develop. Those northern WI counties have a median income that’s about half the national average, so good for them.

    A $1.5 billion mining operation is a huge deal to that area. Back when Gramps used to take my little brother and I into town for a beer there were no stupid hippy chicks/enviro-nazi zealots making total idiots out of themselves — such a thing was unimaginable.

    I’m sure 90% of the locals are cheering this deal. Thank you, Scott Walker for trying to expedite it. Hopefully, the crazies don’t slow it down too much.

  • U.S. jobless claims dip to 294,000; 2014 layoffs lowest in 17 years

    01/08/2015 11:34:00 AM PST · 23 of 26
    AntiScumbag to webheart

    “the total number of jobs could also be the lowest in 17 years”

    You can’t possibly be serious.

    There are now approximately 140 million employed in the US.

    As of 1997? About 124 million.

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

    The number of jobs isn’t just not “the lowest in 17 years,” it’s actually at an all-time high.

    Tax withholding is also at an all-time high, and that’s actual cash collected, as reported daily by the Treasury. Not subject to any statistical shenanigans by anyone.

    https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html

    What you and the rest of the knee-jerk economic illiterates on this thread fail to realize is that the economy is doing fairly well, despite the worst efforts of jug-ears.

    Why? Republicans took the House in 2010. Never mind Boehner or McConnell or any lack of spine.

    The useless golfer has been totally stymied by the House for 4 years — the end of extended unemployment benefits and the budget sequester brake on spending growth did the job.

    Growth should be a lot better than it is, but we have survived and overcome the ongoing disaster that was and is President Chickenshit.

    Try as he might, the bumbling idiot in the White House hasn’t been able to stop the American people from doing what they do best.

    Now we have the Senate, too. His agenda isn’t just totally dead, the doofus now will be forced to actually veto what the public wants, bill after bill to the detriment of any and every Democrat running in 2016.

    Only better years lie ahead.

  • U.S. jobless claims point to firmer labor market: Down by 6,000 to seasonally adjusted 289,000

    12/18/2014 8:57:02 AM PST · 10 of 11
    AntiScumbag to Gaffer
    above 200K is nothing to crow about

    You don't have a single clue, do you?

    Seasonally-adjusted UI claims haven't touched a number below 200K since 1969. Seasonally-unadjusted? Since 1973.

    So, you're somewhere between 40 and 45 years out of date. Let me be the first to thank you for plastering your abject ignorance all over this thread.

    Here are the facts: Every month, about 3.2 million people quit, retire or are fired. Of those, about 1.3 million file new claims for unemployment "insurance" in any given month. About 300K/week.

    The rest (about 1.9 million) quit to take a new job, retired or don't bother filing a UC claim because they know they are disqualified (fired for cause or they quit without a new job to go to) from receiving benefits for many weeks.

    That's all one can say about that -- it's got nothing to do with net employment. Nothing. At all.

    Not if you are counting weekly numbers against monthly numbers

    Which only someone who is totally and completely ignorant of labor statistics would do.

    UI claims have absolutely nothing to do with either the unemployment rate or net employment gains or losses.

    While those 3.2 million quit, retired or were fired, what else happened? About 3.4 million were hired.

    There's the 200K of NET new job creation/month. Get it yet? UI claims have nothing to do with net changes in total employment. All that matters is total hires/total separations.

    UI claims are only slightly predictive of changes in the unemployment rate. Mainly when they rocket up to 500-600K per week. Then, you can be pretty sure that new hires aren't going to exceed separations.

    Meanwhile, the UI numbers are at about the best levels they've been at for about 15 years, and, on a percentage of work-force basis, much longer. Never mind that you don't have even the foggiest understanding of them.

    Believe it or not, and despite the worst that President Chickenshit can do and has done to wreck the U.S. economy, it still manages net employment gains. We should be doing twice as well, but that will have to wait until the lying sack of chickenshit is gone. Nothing can defeat the U.S. economy, not even jug-ears.

  • Everything You Should Know About the Jobs Numbers

    12/06/2014 2:20:41 PM PST · 8 of 11
    AntiScumbag to Rockpile

    “monthly numbers of income taxes and SS”

    Monthly? Who needs monthly?

    That information is published DAILY by the Treasury Dept. It’s called the Daily Treasury Statement.

    See: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html

    Page 7 has tax deposits and payments of all kinds:
    Withheld Income and Employment Taxes
    Individual Income Taxes
    Railroad Retirement Taxes
    Excise Taxes
    Corporation Income Taxes
    Federal Unemployment Taxes
    Estate and Gift Taxes & Misc IRS Rcpts.

    Cash Federal Tax Deposits:
    Direct
    Through Depositaries
    Total Cash FTD’s
    Inter-agency Transfers

    Every single one of those numbers reflects an actual dollar balance. They are not subject to any adjustment or modification or smoothing or substitution — they are just actual numbers reflecting real transactions in any given 24 hour period.

    Since they aren’t subject to any fiddling or game-playing, they’re the only fed numbers I pay any attention to or rely on.

    For Sep-Oct-Nov, using withheld income and SS taxes only, year-over year withholding is running about +4%. Earlier in the year — Jan-Feb-Mar — it was running about +8% y-o-y.

    Of the current roughly +4%, about 2% is for new jobs (total non-farm employment has been running about +2% y-o-y all year.) That leaves about +2% as increased withholding for existing “old” jobs. Assuming 2% inflation, that leaves essentially no net wage growth happening right now. Net wage growth was running about +5% early in the year and has slowed down steadily all year.

    The upshot of all that is employment is growing slowly but steadily, and average wages are stagnant.

    Despite the worst that President Chickenshit can throw at it, the U.S. economy is resilient enough to manage to grow slowly. Perhaps growth rates will improve a little next year with Republican control of the Senate. 2017 might finally see a return to consistent, solid 4%+ growth if jug-ears is replaced with any Republican.


    A general point on the article. Shedlock is mistaken when he says “all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out” when talking about how unemployed people are counted.

    Whether or not anyone is collecting a UI check has absolutely NOTHING to do with who is counted as unemployed. That number is determined solely by the Household Survey — you are either able to work and actively looking or you ain’t. UI doesn’t matter, period.

  • Oil prices in freefall as OPEC fails to agree output cut

    11/27/2014 5:38:58 PM PST · 47 of 61
    AntiScumbag to SaxxonWoods

    You’re a sane voice amongst a lot of the usual useless blather.

    The Saudis don’t really give a crap about US production, there’s little they can do about it, anyway. They’re much more interested in squeezing the Iranians and the Russians at the moment. If Venezuela also gets squeezed a little, that’s OK, too.

  • WTF ATF:The ATF's Fake Retail Stores,Bad Behavior.And Why It Only Came Out Because They Failed To...

    11/27/2014 5:20:34 PM PST · 10 of 18
    AntiScumbag to RightGeek

    The ATF is a total mess and has been for a long time, but this is old news, as in January, 2013, almost 2 years ago.

    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html

  • The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time

    11/10/2014 10:01:59 AM PST · 68 of 102
    AntiScumbag to Mr Rogers

    That’s ridiculous.

    The USSC issues decisions, period, end of story. There’s no such thing as a suspended USSC decision, there has never been and there will never be. Only a lower court (District or Circuit) might suspend a decision pending appeal.

    The USSC decides a case and that’s it. Congress can then do whatever it wants about it whenever. Or never.

    As it should be.

  • The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time

    11/10/2014 7:26:19 AM PST · 54 of 102
    AntiScumbag to Cowboy Bob

    The USSC never makes “statements.” About anything.

    Even when they decline to hear a case, they don’t say why, they simply decline. Which means that there were 3 or fewer votes to hear it. For whatever (whether one or many) reason(s). Everyone else is left to puzzle out the split.

    They only make “statements” about cases in the form of a decision — a majority opinion (and any concurrences) and any dissenting opinion(s) (and any concurrences.)

    Any Justice who wants to make a “statement” is free to do so as part of the opinion on the decision. And they often do so. But, that’s an individual thing. And, that’s just dicta of no legal import. Not binding on the USSC or anyone else.

    The LAST thing I want the USSC doing is issuing formal “statements” about anything. Ever. It ain’t their (constitutional) job.

  • The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time

    11/10/2014 6:36:45 AM PST · 46 of 102
    AntiScumbag to pepsionice

    There will never be any USSC “recommendation” and your prediction on the timing is way off.

    The USSC granted cert — accepted the case for hearing. Briefings, followed by oral argument, probably in March. There will probably be no ruling before June-July of ‘15 — when most rulings from this court term are released.

    There is zero possibility that it’s “finished” before the new Congress is sworn in January.

    The USSC won’t recommend anything, they’ll simply rule upon whether subsidies provided by the federal exchange are contrary to the law as written and are illegal. That’s it.

    If they (as they should, IMO) rule that the federal subsidies can’t be paid to people living in the 34 states that didn’t set up an “exchange” under the law, it will effectively kill this misbegotten socialist adventure by President Chickenshit.

    Can’t happen too soon, but it won’t be by January.

    Odds are good that the USSC will blow it up. Obviously, 4 Justices (the previous dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius) voted to hear it, maybe Roberts, too.

    They certainly didn’t have to hear it, there’s no split in the Circuit courts (if you assume that the DC Circuit will overturn their previous 3-judge decision when they re-hear it en banc.) But, the USSC apparently didn’t want to wait and put it off a year.

    That’s a pretty good indication that either the 4 NFIB dissenters want to force Roberts to atone or Roberts himself wants to atone for his previous goofy “tax” justification idiocy in NFIB. He certainly is enabled and encouraged to do so by the recent election results. Which should have nothing to do with anything, but probably has and will.

    All in all, very, very positive. Maybe a pile of Congressional votes between Jan and June on the individual mandate and “keeping your doctor” and “keeping your insurance” (3 participation problems) and the medical device tax (a revenue problem) will totally cripple the monstrous atrocity called the ACA before the USSC gets around to ruling, but that remains to be seen.

    Who knows? Maybe the massive soon-to-be announced rate increases will provide enough voter outrage to generate veto-proof margins for repeal in January. That would be the best outcome of all.

  • U.S. Economy Adds 214K Jobs, Unemployment Rate Falls to 5.8%

    11/07/2014 10:16:02 AM PST · 56 of 59
    AntiScumbag to Milton Miteybad
    Unfortunately, new initial claims for unemployment were running about 275,000 per week in October, or 1,100,000 for the entire month. In other words, the Obama economy is lost 825,000 jobs more than it gained in October, 2014.

    You can't possibly be serious. Either that, or you know less than nothing about the U.S. labor market and labor statistics. More likely both.

    In the last year or so, every month about 3.4 million people are hired. And about 3.2 million people quit, retire or are fired. Otherwise known as "separations" by BLS.

    There's the roughly 200K of net new jobs each month.

    Of the 3.2 million separations, about 1.3 million file new claims for unemployment in any given month. About 300K/week.

    The rest quit to take a new job, retired or don't bother filing a UC claim because they know they are disqualified (fired for cause) from receiving benefits for many weeks.

    While President Chickenshit's economy stinks, it would stink a lot worse if Republicans hadn't won in 2010 and put a stop to his nonsense. This year's election plugs up more holes.

    We're actually doing reasonably well thanks to 2010 -- although it could be a LOT better -- but we are growing at about 2%/year. The U.S. economy can withstand almost anything, even a blithering, narcissistic moron in the White House who knows nothing about economics and will never admit that he's made a single mistake in his entire life.

    Much better days come when jug-ears is finally gone.

    Meanwhile, weekly UC claims have absolutely nothing to do with monthly net employment figures. Contrary to the goofy rubbish spouted by you and many others on this and other threads.

  • Ralph Nader to Apple CEO Tim Cook: Pay Chinese workers double and cut their hours in half

    10/25/2014 5:40:57 AM PDT · 34 of 60
    AntiScumbag to Palio di Siena

    As a freshman at the U of Minn in ‘69, I picked up a copy of “Unsafe At Any Speed” in a used bookstore for 25 cents. Only because I had picked up a ‘65 Corvair Spyder for a few hundred bucks. The only sporty vehicle ever made under the Corvair nameplate.

    A few months later, a 35 year-old Nader — known only for his BS book — was going to be speaking on-campus at Coffman Union, the main “student center” and a major venue, it seated maybe 2,000. So, out of curiosity, I showed up. Hung around afterwards and met the guy as a bunch of admirers were asking him questions. I wasn’t impressed.

    He spent most of his time yapping about “PIRGS” — public interest research groups — and sure enough, by the next year MPIRG (M for Minnesota) existed. Soon, they were whacking students for mandatory fees every quarter. Now, they’re everywhere, sucking up student and public money.

    Ralph passed his sell-by date 40 years ago, but he never stops with his liberal BS. When he stroked-out years ago, I thought he might hang it up. No such luck, he’s still at it at age 80. Most people get smarter as they get older. Not Ralph.

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 11:37:08 PM PDT · 41 of 42
    AntiScumbag to noinfringers2

    Let’s simplify this. It’s got nothing to do with you being a servant.

    You made a flat-out claim: “I (...) have docs to trace the history.”

    So, you can put up or shut up.

    Obviously, having already been given the chance to do so, you can’t or won’t produce anything, so anyone reading this will be able to decide whether you are 1) lying about your “documents,” or 2) an anti-Semite who wants to spread rubbish about European Jewish bankers, specifically the Rothschilds.

    Absent documents which “trace the history” I will conclude that the later is the case.

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 2:13:14 PM PDT · 39 of 42
    AntiScumbag to noinfringers2

    We see it differently?

    Well, all right, then. Please post your documents that “trace the history.” Links, perhaps?

    Prove me wrong. Lay out your evidence that European Jews like the Rothschilds are behind the Fed.

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 1:55:19 PM PDT · 38 of 42
    AntiScumbag to huldah1776

    OK.

    Do you have a better understanding of how the Fed works in reality?

    Do you understand why I object to the goofy BS about the Fed being “owned” by bankers, etc., etc.?

    The Fed was a really, really dumb idea, but it’s a purely government operation, the place where almost all dumb ideas germinate and bloom to our detriment.

    I actually would prefer that there was no government lender of last resort — that it be entirely left up to the private sector and no one else — after all, those are the guys (together with their shareholders, who can fire them) with something at stake. As it was before the advent of the Fed for over 100 years.

    Which means that I’m all in favor of a “Fed”-equivalent which is actually, totally, publicly and fully owned outright by the private sector. That is to say, by the banks who get together to make loans to each other such that the system always functions. It’s their money at stake on a loan to the ABC or XYZ bank that got into trouble — they’re going to be much more careful about the terms than any fed bureaucrat will ever be.

    A system over which the government has absolutely no say whatsoever.

    That puts us in a place where there’s no mistake about who is responsible. There’s no mistake about who did what or to whom or why. No excuses are possible.

    No BS. Just the relentless efficiency of the private sector.

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 12:36:20 PM PDT · 33 of 42
    AntiScumbag to noinfringers2

    You can’t possibly be serious.

    Read post 29 — yes, every single word of it — and get back to me.

    Yes, Wilson was an incompetent idiot (much like the current inhabitant of the White House,) but, no, the Fed isn’t a “European entity,” nor does it have anything to do with the evil Jooos, or, as you put it, the centuries-old “Rothschild” endeavors in banking. Stormfront much?

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 12:18:32 PM PDT · 32 of 42
    AntiScumbag to huldah1776

    You’ve obviously already read my reply, my reference to “ranting and raving” was at the very end of it.

    Who is behind all of the crud of the last 100 years?

    Idiot politicians. Simple as that. Politicians always find a way to debase the currency. It’s what they do, one way or another, central bank-based or otherwise.

    Unless you want to dispute something I’ve said, you need to stop posting ridiculous garbage about the Fed. That sort of junk is rampant amongst conservatives (and the general public) who know absolutely nothing of the facts.

    It all sounds great, but none of it is true. You can’t argue for the abolition of the Fed based on nonsense.

    There are plenty of good reasons the Fed shouldn’t exist, but made-up stuff contributes nothing.

  • How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

    08/08/2014 9:55:45 AM PDT · 29 of 42
    AntiScumbag to huldah1776
    The Fed is not a government agency.

    How about some FACTS, instead of the usual rubbish (such as the idiotic link that you posted) that gets repeated over and over?

    Here's something I wrote years ago in response to someone else who had the same misconceptions about the Fed that you (and others) seem to have:

    The Federal Reserve System Board of Governors is a FEDERAL AGENCY created by federal law. All 7 members of the Board are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 14 year terms. The System BoG formulates monetary policy. The System BoG is where reserve requirements are set, where the discount rate is set, and where rules and regulations are adopted.

    The 7 System BoG members are a PERMANENT MAJORITY of the 12 member Federal Open Market Committee, the other 5 members being the President of the NY Fed and 4 other regional Fed bank presidents each serving one year terms.

    Regional Fed bank presidents are appointed (subject to approval by the System BoG) by each regional Fed bank's 9 member Board of Directors, 3 of whom are appointed by the System BoG (none of these 3 may be an officer, director, employee or shareholder of any bank,) and 6 of whom are elected by the member bank "shareholders" (3 of these 6 may not be an officer, director or employee of any bank.) One of the directors appointed by the System BoG is designated by the System BoG as Chairman of the Board and another as Deputy Chairman.

    The 3 "bank" representatives on each 9 member regional Board are excluded from the process of appointing the regional Fed bank's president.

    The Chairman of the System BoG is also the Chairman of the FOMC. The FOMC implements System BoG monetary policy. The FOMC is where fed funds target rates are set, where margin rates are set, and is responsible for open market operations to carry out policy.

    The System BoG and the FOMC are where ALL of the actual power of the Fed resides. The 7 System BoG members nominated by the President are an absolute and permanent majority of both the BoG and the FOMC. They hold and exercise ALL of the power of the Fed.

    The Boards of the regional Fed banks suggest changes in the discount rate, but the System BoG must approve them. Other than that, the primary function of the regional Fed banks is to provide services like check clearing and FedWire to member banks. They do the scut work and a lot of research, and their presidents give lots of speeches.

    Here are 14 key differences between the regional Fed bank "shares" and actual shares of real common stock in the real world:

    1) If you want to buy shares of IBM (or any other public company) you may buy any amount you wish. The "shares" Fed member banks have to buy is equal to 6% (3% in cash, 3% on-call) of their paid-in capital and retained earnings. By statute.

    2) If you own shares of IBM, you will never be required by anyone to buy more for any reason. As Fed member banks' capital increases, they are required to purchase more Fed regional bank "shares." By statute.

    3) You buy IBM shares through a broker on a market like the NYSE or NASDAQ, not from the government. You simply buy them, you don't fill out an application to the Federal Reserve as prospective Fed member banks do, by statute.

    4) You buy your IBM shares from some (unknown) individual or institution on the other side of the trade. Not from the government, as Fed member banks must, by statute.

    5) When you want to sell IBM shares you use the same markets you used to purchase them, and do so whenever you wish. Fed member banks can only sell their "shares" back to the government and only when they cease to be a member bank. By statute.

    6) You can pledge your IBM shares as collateral on a loan at anytime you wish. No member bank can pledge or hypothecate its regional Fed bank "shares" under any circumstances, ever, by statute.

    7) An owner of IBM shares can vote on all issues that are put to a shareholder vote. Regional Fed bank "shares" entitle a member bank to vote for 6 of the 9 members of its regional bank's Board of Directors. That's it. By statute.

    8) Owners of IBM shares gets one vote for each share. Member banks holding regional Fed bank "shares" get one vote, period, no matter how many "shares" they own. By statute.

    9) Candidates for IBM's Board of Directors are nominated by IBM or its shareholders in accordance with its by-laws, and are then voted on by shareholders. The Fed's Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and neither Fed member banks nor their 12 elected regional bank Boards of Directors have anything whatsoever to say about it. By statute.

    10) If IBM's Board of Directors decides that they want to increase the dividend payable to shareholders they can do so at anytime they wish. The 6% "dividend" on Fed regional bank "shares" is set by statute.

    11) If IBM wants to amend its corporate by-laws, it can do so at anytime with the approval of a majority of shareholders. By statute, no regional Fed bank can amend its charter, ever.

    12) IBM is a profit-making private enterprise, and they may do whatever they wish with any after-tax profits. The Fed regional banks must turn over 100% of their operating income (net after payment of the statutory 6% "dividend") to the US Treasury each year. By statute.

    13) As time goes on, the value of IBM shares fluctuates, sometimes widely. The value of each member bank's regional Fed bank "shares" is fixed at $100. By statute.

    14) If IBM is liquidated, your shares entitle you to your relative proportion of assets left (if any) after all creditors of IBM have been paid. Fed regional bank "shares" entitle member banks to exactly zero Fed assets under any circumstances. By statute.

    "Shares" of the regional Fed banks owned by Fed member banks are mandatory, totally restricted, entail virtually no rights or privileges, and confer no ownership of anything under any circumstances.

    The reality is that regional Fed bank "shares" are nothing more than a semi-permanent deposit of capital by another name.

    It's unfortunate that the word "shares" was ever associated with the mandatory deposits by Fed member banks because it creates an impression that they're something that they're not.

    The use of the word "share" was very narrowly technically correct as these quasi-governmental regional Fed bank entities were formed as corporations which issue shares, as do all corporations. But, it gave rise to conspiracy theories cooked up and propagated by people who know little or nothing about the Fed, banking, government or law, but focus laser-like on the regional Fed bank "shares" to claim that "the Fed is privately owned." Never mind that the regional Fed banks have no power over anything.

    The Fed is not privately owned and never has been. For good or ill, it's a 100% government-controlled operation.

    For the ill-informed/tin-foil hatters, FACTS are unfortunate, but nonetheless remain true.

    Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I think the Fed should be abolished. It was always a bad idea, remains so and has always, from day one been a 100% government-controlled entity.

    Rant and rave all you want, but FACTS are stubborn things.