Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $77,645
88%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $10.4k to go!! Thank you all very much!! God bless

Posts by AntiScumbag

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 2:34:48 PM PDT · 128 of 181
    AntiScumbag to central_va
    Trade as a percent of GDP was < 5% in the early 1930’s

    Wrong, as usual. Trade was NOT less than 5% of GDP in 1929. GDP was then 104.6 billion. Exports were 5.9 billion. Imports were 5.6 billion.

    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=9

    "Trade" was about 11.5 billion. That's about 11%, not "less than 5%."

    In 4 years trade fell to 2 billion of exports and 1.9 billion of imports. 3.9 billion total. Down almost 70%.

    As I pointed out to you here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3406938/posts

    I guess you can't be bothered with any numbers which make you look like a fool.

    Thanks, Smoot-Hawley for dragging the economy down much further than it would have otherwise have fallen! Good job, tariffs! Take a bow, protectionists!

    Now it is $3.5 Trillion out of $17 Trillion = 21%.

    Wrong again, trade is not now 3.5 trillion, that's the 70% damage that could be done to trade by your protectionist nonsense.

    Trade now totals a little over 5 trillion and GDP is about 18 trillion, not 17 trillion. How do you manage to get every single number wrong? It's amazing.

    What's funny is that you are now using my 3.5 trillion damage number that could be done by tariffs. Apparently you are confused. I'm not surprised.

    And 5 trillion in total trade (exports plus imports) is 28% of GDP, not 21%.

    So, yeah, it's a big difference. It's a much bigger and more important difference than you think. Thanks for making my point. Again.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 12:52:00 PM PDT · 120 of 181
    AntiScumbag to Hawthorn
    What would it take to reach the Trumpian Utopia of an import-free American economy?

    Good question. Our newly-crowned emperor of really, really good, no, make that huge deals, no doubt in consultation with central_va and other assorted geniuses would make all of the necessary economic allocations, perfectly. After all, they know everything or can hire those Top Men who do.

    They wouldn't need a mere 5-year plan, probably more like a 50-year plan.

    So we could achieve "Juche," as the Norks call it, total self-reliance, an "original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought."

    Or something like that. NO IMPORTS, baby! Imports are evil!

    The Norks have annual GDP somewhere around 2K per capita. Nobody knows, that's just a guess, there being no published government figures. And who cares if half of them are starving and eat tree bark?

    In the free-trading US, GDP per capita is about 55K. But, why stop there?

    I'm sure we can drive that number down towards 2K if we exert enough protectionist effort. We, too, can eat tree bark if only we strive for Juche.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 6:33:10 AM PDT · 89 of 181
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You’re a funny guy.

    So far, you’ve called me a fascist, a free “traitor” and suggested that I should be “put in either insane asylums or concentration camps.”

    That’s some really fine ad hominem stuff. You should be proud of your inability to argue anything effectively.

    I understand that you have a problem getting out of the 1800s and with anyone who points out that your “arguments” hold no water.

    Just for instance, what I actually said was that most of the jobs that have left over MANY DECADES were union, it’s got nothing to do with what’s left.

    All you did was make my point. Unionization has gone from 50% or so in the late ‘40s to 6-7% today. And still declining.

    Why? Their over-paid jobs are exported or automated, had to happen. What can’t go on won’t go on. Any way you slice it, the result is the same — no over-paid job. Competition won’t allow it, much as you might want central planning.

    Oops, you were wrong again. Which maintains your record of being 0% correct.

    Sink your teeth into this. Extorting above-market wages is not a viable business plan in the long-term.

    Nonetheless, rant on, dude. As I’m sure you will. Too bad nobody with active synapses really cares what you say.

  • Three Cheers for Free Trade

    03/17/2016 4:50:27 AM PDT · 59 of 181
    AntiScumbag to olezip
    First, how "free" is free trade?

    Doesn't matter. No trade the US has EVER conducted has been "free" or "equal" or "fair" -- that was always a fantasy that doesn't matter.

    Who cares how "fair" it is? Nobody. People buy stuff from those durn furriners because they consider it to be to their advantage to do so under the terms at the time. Always have, always will.

    Second exactly why do Trump, Clinton, and Sanders lambast [sic] free trade?

    Because they are all economic illiterates and they think it sounds good to make idiotic "arguments" against trade.

    The amount of economic nonsense of this and every trade thread here is astounding.

    Most people here get the fact that a minimum wage (regardless of level) is a bad idea and increases unemployment. How is it that they don't also get that tariffs/protectionism is far, far worse?

    That if implemented on any serious basis it would cost everyone hundreds of billions to protect a few jobs that aren't worth protecting. Huge net negative to the economy. Sorta like increasing the minimum wage, but on a much bigger scale.

    Most jobs that have left -- mostly unionized low-skill, no-skill jobs -- aren't something you would want to do or want your kid to do for more than a week.

    The union above-market wage extortion scheme has been imploding for 50 years. Surprise, surprise, wages have been stagnant for decades as this process works itself out.

    Even with no trade at all, all of those "lost" jobs would have been automated out of existence, out of necessity.

    Get over it. Our problem isn't trade, it's a useless education system and ridiculous regulations and high taxes.

    If you have no skills that aren't common, you're gonna get paid accordingly, if at all. I say "if at all" because the taxes and regulations may wind up meaning the business that might have paid you could wind up being formed in some other country because of the US tax and regulatory scheme.

    Oops, you're outta luck. Nothing to do with trade.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:31:11 PM PST · 160 of 218
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You know, you really need to get out of the 1800s.

    In FY2015, total US federal tax revenue from all sources was about 3.25 trillion.

    How much of that was from tariffs-duties-customs charges?

    About 35 billion.

    That’s about 1% of total federal revenue. A hair over. 1.08%.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist02z1.xls
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist02z5.xls

    Let’s go back to 1950. 407 million in tariffs. Out of 39.4 billion total revenue.

    How about that? 1.03%

    The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? Those 1% or so numbers are headed slowly toward zero over the next 50-100 years whether you like it or not.

    Yeah, they jiggle around a little from year to year, but they’re coming down from 5% in 1940. You know, the hangover from Smoot-Hawley.

    Why? Everyone in the world understands that tariffs are counter-productive and make everyone worse off. Which is why tariff percentages have been in a relentless downtrend for 80 years.

    Face it. You can blather on ad infinitum and ad nauseam but we’re not going back to a tariff-based tax collection system. We’ve gotten rid of 80+% of it and we’re working on the remnants.

    Not to mention that we’re not dumb enough to kill world trade with idiotic tariffs that result in every economy taking a hit, perhaps 20% in our case, contrary to what you may think.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:21:53 PM PST · 159 of 218
    AntiScumbag to Mase

    Now, our little protectionist buddy from VA thinks the founders would have strung all of us “butt boys” up from the nearest tree.

    That he misses the irony in what he says is truly comical.

    What can you do with someone like that?

    Seems to be the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. Maybe he’ll look it up but I doubt it’ll do any good.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 1:24:07 PM PST · 136 of 218
    AntiScumbag to Mase

    Our little friend from VA is incorrigibly ignorant.

    Once his “arguments” are exposed as nonsense, anyone doing so instantly becomes unpatriotic or a communist or worse.

    He really should join the Bernie campaign, he being so smart and happy to pay an extra “few cents on the dollar” so that some moron can keep an overpaid union job for a while.

    And, of course, he’s only too happy to require that everyone else also pay through the nose. Just because he said so. Because only he knows best.

    Why, he’s so smart that he knows better than the entire US economy, if only it would listen to him and his fellow central planners. Why, just wait, he’ll come up with a 5-year plan any time now.

    There’s a lot of totalitarian in every protectionist when you get right down to it.

    The protectionist nitwittery on FR hasn’t ever stopped in 18 years and probably never will. They loves their stupid tariffs, even though the country was already put through their wringer over 80 years ago.

    It’s actually kinda funny. Our Dear Leader Jug-ears loves the utterly failed policies of the 1930s and so do the protectionists.

  • The Unseen Cost Of Saving Jobs With Tariffs

    03/09/2016 6:22:28 AM PST · 74 of 218
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    You never stop with your incessant trade nonsense, do you?

    I’ve already explained why your simple-minded garbage about tariffs is ridiculous nonsense.

    Smoot-Hawley managed to reduce trade by about 70% in the early ‘30s. Today, with just shy of an 18 trillion GDP, do you want to whack international trade by 70%?

    That would be about 1.9 trillion in US imports, over 10% of GDP.

    It would happen quickly. Impose a 35% tariff on Chinese goods. Followed by immediate retaliation by the Chinese.

    Followed by more US tariffs on everyone who rushed to fill the Chinese void. Followed by more retaliation by all of those countries. And back and forth and so on and so forth and on and on until someone finally came to their senses many years later. It’s called a trade war.

    Which would take down another 1.6 trillion of exports.

    Total damage to the economy in short order? 3.5 trillion.

    20% of the entire economy.

    Never mind the add-on effects of knocking 20% of the economy on its butt. Never mind the shortages and rapidly increasing prices costing people hundreds and hundreds of billions and the depression it would trigger.

    For what? So that a handful of people in industries which no longer exist in the US could have jobs that you pine for at some distant future point that pay spit?

    You really have no economic clue at all. Go read some Ricardo on comparative advantage and get back to us when you have a better grasp of things.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  • It’s tax season and you know that means… or do you?

    03/07/2016 4:35:31 AM PST · 7 of 30
    AntiScumbag to HomerBohn

    This article is a hot, steaming pile of crap.

    Income taxes aren’t a fraud or a deception on anyone, they’re just a bad way to raise revenue. A consumption tax being the obvious alternative.

    How about that? We could throw out about 70,000 pages of regulatory details and rules and nobody would have any reason to lobby for this or that special treatment in the future.

    Not to mention that we could get rid of maybe 90-95,000 of our 100,000 IRS employees.

    A tax that encourages investment. No special treatment possible. I’ll vote for that and anyone who supports it every single time.

  • News for the elites: We're already in a trade war and we're losing our ass!

    03/03/2016 10:00:04 PM PST · 46 of 71
    AntiScumbag to Jim Robinson
    OK, you asked. Here's some answers.

    What do we manufacture in the U.S. anymore?

    Lots of stuff, just not the junk that's in Walmart from China or wherever that everyone talks about. Somebody else can make the easy, low-tech/no-tech cheap stuff.

    Most of the stuff we make and export is stuff nobody is familiar with or sees on a shelf in a store. Mostly high-tech, high cost capital goods, not cheap consumer junk anyone can make.

    Airplanes. Heavy equipment. Computer-controlled equipment of all types. Other highly sophisticated, high-tech manufacturing stuff. Etc., etc. None of it is on a shelf at Walmart.

    Total, about 4 trillion of goods in 2015. Plus, we exported about 1.5 trillion of goods. Total about 5.5 trillion. About 31% of GDP.

    By way of comparison, in 1980 goods were about 36% of GDP.

    So, there's been a very slight, very slow decline on a percentage basis over the last 35 years. Not a big deal. .17% of GDP per year. Despite that slight drag, the total value of manufacturing in the US continues to set records.

    BEA
    Table 1.1.5

    Kinda like 200 years ago when 98% of employment was in farming. Now, farming is maybe 1% of total employment, yet our farms produce 1000 times as much and we're the world's largest agricultural exporter.

    Where have all our manufacturing jobs gone?

    To the extent that there has been a loss of jobs, unions can take most of the credit. Extorting above-market wages has been going on for about 70 years and it doesn't work.

    Slowly but surely some over-paid manufacturing jobs have left, permanently. Textiles, shoes, toys, etc., etc.

    50 years ago there was still a lot of low-skill manufacturing going on. Tab A in slot B is a job anyone can do with no skill, so it's going to go elsewhere over time, even without a union accelerating it.

    Why can't we be competitive?

    We're competitive in many industries, we dominate many, but in some we're not because: 1) Unions. 2) Regulations.

    Why are our costs so high?

    Same deal. Throw in a lack of being able to compete internationally due to our stupid system of corporate taxation.

    Is government the solution or the problem?

    Nothing the government does ever makes US business more competitive.

    Government enabled unions and we still suffer the ill-effects.

    Government constantly enacts new regulations and we suffer the ever-increasing ill-effects.

    Government runs the "education" system which throws out increasing numbers of unemployable illiterates.

    No surprise that any business that possibly can will use robotics and technology to replace them or avoid having to hire them at all.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    03/03/2016 5:40:26 AM PST · 192 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    I’ll bet you do file “several” tax forms with the IRS annually.

    Let’s see. Start with a false 1040.

    To that, add one or more false “corrected” 1099s. Problem is that the only entity capable of filing a corrected 1099 is the original filer. That ain’t you. That’s whoever paid you the money you don’t want to report. So, instead, you make stuff up. Bad idea.

    And, then, how about some false 4852s? Nothing like admitting guilt by taking a specific action to carry out your tax evasion by trying to zero-out your reported W-2 amounts by “correcting” them to zero, eh?

    Sounds like a trifecta of false filings. 3 years in the pen plus 250K each, max. You’ll probably get 2-3 years or so, total. Go for it.

    BTW, WorldNutDaily is full of it, as usual. The DH case has no implications for free speech or anything else. It only has implications for the idiotic DH. The guy who wrote that sorry excuse for an “article” is an idiot, not unlike you.

    The judge ordered DH to file accurate returns. She refused. She was indicted, tried and convicted by a jury and sentenced for criminal contempt of court. It’s that simple.

    Unless you believe in TP magic words that never, ever work.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    03/01/2016 4:44:06 AM PST · 188 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    BTW, I recommend that you read judge Buch’s take-down of PH and CtC and CtC “educated” returns.

    http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/WaltnerMemo.Buch.TCM.WPD.pdf

    Most federal judges, whether District or Circuit or Tax Court don’t bother with details when they’re faced with total nonsense. They usually just quote Crain v. Commissioner:

    “We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”

    Judge Buch actually took the time.

    Pretty amazing. Shocking, actually. Most of them can’t be bothered by nitwits and other purveyors of total junk and really, really stupid nonsense.

    Buch wrote a comprehensive, detailed opinion, which he certainly didn’t have to do. It was a slap-down of another of PH’s idiot adherents, namely Steven Waltner.

    Needless to say, Waltner lost. They all do. And he was sanctioned $2,500 by Buch for delaying and wasting the court’s time. Waltner was lucky, the sanction could have been up to 25K.

    Buch takes PH’s useless book apart, chapter by chapter. Cover to cover. It’s a classic delineation of the fact that what you seem to think is the “truth” is utter and total rubbish and nonsense. And why it loses every single time.

    Read and be warned. The only reason you haven’t been called to account for your self-admitted tax evasion is that the IRS is incompetent.

    Slow to figure things out. Stupid, as in believing rubbish people like you spout. Anyone at the IRS who bought your BS was obviously a low-level employee, not someone who knew what they were doing. Close enough for government work, right?

    Works for a while. But, even the idiotic government figures things out eventually. Took them years to catch on to PH and all the rest of them.

    If you ever receive any IRS correspondence from Ogden, UT, you’ll know that you’re now on the TP griddle. Ogden is where they send all of the returns they think might be from evaders/TPs. You know, as in fraudulent. They have an entire office devoted to pursuing people like Schiff, PH and their followers. Like you.

    Once you’re on that radar, you’re screwed. There’s no longer any question that you’ll be sued for amounts due if you don’t pay upon demand, the question becomes whether your case merits referral to the Criminal Investigation Division. Oops.

    I really don’t care if you want to expose yourself to civil suit and/or criminal indictment as you play your stupid little TP tax evasion games. You might get away with it for another 10 years.

    Then again, you might not.

    The IRS doesn’t like morons squawking about getting away with evading taxes. And this is a public forum. IRS and DoJ people read forums like this looking for idiots who brag about their tax evasion.

    Probably not a good thing to do, huh?

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/29/2016 9:54:05 PM PST · 187 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Nothing to do with evasion, eh? You really are dense.

    False filings are all about evasion. False numbers are filed which results in less or no tax due — you know, what most people call evading taxes. Which is why I use the term colloquially.

    The feds tend to use false filing charges instead of the evasion statute because they are easier to prove. The end result is the same as the sentencing guidelines revolve around the tax loss and criminal history.

    PH, who is also permanently enjoined from using his nonsense on his own returns caught 10 felony counts of filing false documents. Four false 1040s and 6 false 4852s.

    Convicted on all 10 counts. Sentenced to federal prison.

    And you want to quibble over which statute was used to convict him.

    PH and Schiff are and were equally full of nonsense. I think everyone has a 1st amendment right to make a fool of themselves by publishing any nonsense they wish. In Schiff’s case, he — and only he — was banned from selling his book because it was held to be false commercial speech, commercial speech being less protected.

    That the same principle had different results for PH doesn’t say anything about his book being “true” at all. In fact, it’s total nonsense from cover to cover.

    He’s the idiot who went to prison because of his nonsense and his “educated” returns. Just like Schiff. So keep driving, PH’s ignorance is at least as great as was Schiff’s.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/28/2016 8:07:38 PM PST · 185 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Relax, dude.

    I realize that you’re way out of your depth and that you can’t make even the slightest semblance of a coherent argument, but there’s no need to act like a 3rd-grader.

    If you were a liberal, I’d be encouraging you to dig your tax-evasion hole even deeper. Go for it. Screw the evil goobermint.

    But, you’re supposedly a conservative, albeit one who is hideously ill-informed about tax law. I explained it in detail but your ignorance is truly invincible.

    That’s classic self-serving TP behavior — love the result, as in no income tax due — but damn the multitude of inconvenient facts that prove them all to be blithering idiots.

    Ask Irwin Schiff. Well, no, actually you can’t, he died in federal prison for his TP zero-return stupidity after, what was it? His 3rd federal conviction, or was it his 4th? I forget, there’ve been so many.

    You, for instance, sorta like Irwin, won’t give up even when your lies have been beaten to a bloody pulp for days on end. It took years for the courts to beat his nonsense down, but it happened.

    In his last criminal trial he admitted that he might be mentally ill. Then he tried to turn it into a defense. Didn’t work.

    PH, another convicted federal tax felon on whose words you obviously hang — you link to his site and quote his fake case cites — is already a has-been TP “guru” as his very few remaining followers are quite mad about why they always lose and never, ever win.

    So, go right ahead.

    Try to cough up even a single victory by PH or any of his followers in any federal court for the nonsense you and PH put forth.

    You can’t do it because no such thing exists. Nonsense always loses. Every single time. Over and over again. It’s totally predictable.

    There’s nothing I can do if you want to keep drinking the TP Kool-Aid, regardless of the vendor — PH is just one of many.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    I wish you a lot of luck, mainly because you’re gonna need a lot of it if you continue down the sad path that you’re on.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 8:49:41 PM PST · 182 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Liar? That’s rich coming from a guy who tosses out one lie after another.

    You have yet to manage to respond substantively to ANYTHING I’ve said pointing out your non-stop nonsense. You just keep changing the subject with more nonsense or spouting insults.

    Here are the names of 6 PH-followers who came to regret it: Artman, Dowling, Golson, Gerstenkorn and Spitzer.

    The DoJ complaints and court cases are on-line, you can look them up yourself. Those 6 alone were good for 140K+ in judgments. That’s just through 2008, there have been many more since.

    Including PH and his wife being sent to federal prison because of his idiotic book.

    PH, his wife and all of his followers put together have never won in any civil or criminal action or appeal. Not once. And they never will, no matter how many windmills they tilt at.

    Before you dig your tax evasion hole any deeper, you should call that CPA you ditched 10+ years ago. He might save you some money, not to mention prison time. Unlike you, he actually knows what he’s talking about.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 7:25:05 PM PST · 180 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Why are you babbling about the Internal Revenue Manual? It means nothing in court.

    Why are you posting useless links about an irrelevant case?

    Audits? Of course you’re wrong. The last one covered about 5 mill of gross revenue for one year. Result. No change, not even a penny.

    The IRS is well aware of PH and his nonsense, not to mention his followers and the kind of junk they put on their returns. They have pursued many of them and won every single time. You better hope that you’re never audited again.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 7:14:44 PM PST · 179 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Never let it be said that ever miss an opportunity to put your ignorance on display.

    US v Allegheny was a PROPERTY tax case. That’s even more irrelevant than a fake cite to a corporate tax case.

    You clearly don’t yet understand that whether or not something is or is not somehow related to the feds has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether something is income.

    And then you trot out yet more nonsense from Hendrickson — his “includes and including” rubbish. What’s next? His I’m not a “person” baloney?

    It’s comical. TPs whine and complain about laws being unclear. Then, when Congress adds some words to reduce possible confusion such as “includes the performance of the functions of a public office” (you know, like a judge) TPs try to twist it to mean the exact opposite of what the words mean.

    See, way back when, some thought that the income of federal judges couldn’t be taxed. The courts said it could be. That’s why those specific words “public office” are there. To remove all doubt from the minds of the uninformed.

    Perhaps anticipating Hendrickson’s nonsense, they added the sentence “... ‘includes’ and ‘including’ (...) shall NOT be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined” [emphasis added].

    Get it? Using the word “public” excludes no other thing from the meaning. Private, for instance.

    You’re about as good as Hendrickson at “legal interp” — that is, not good at all. Horrible, in fact.

    If you doubt that, there are many, many federal court decisions referring to him and his utterly stupid book, including many against people who bought his book and were dumb enough to believe it.

    Every bogus idea he has ever concocted has been slapped down by one or more federal judges as frivolous. You should read some of those decisions instead of junk that means nothing.

    The poor guy even has something almost nobody else has — a permanent federal injunction against filing his own tax returns using his crack-pot ideas.

    Keep it up. Your name could wind up on a federal civil tax lawsuit or federal criminal tax indictment, too.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 5:23:11 PM PST · 171 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    So, did you miss the all-important fact that Southern Pacific v Lowe was a case about dividends paid to one corporation by another, wholly-owned corporation under the corporation income tax act of 1913?

    Do you understand that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the federal taxation of individual income? Not then. Not now. Not ever.

    Did you miss the simple fact that your “quote” is a total fake and fabrication? It is of course, straight from Hendrickson because a convicted federal tax felon is a go-to kind of guy when it comes to tax advice.

    Notice how he leaves out any mention that the case deals with corporate income tax law (at the time) and not the taxation of individuals?

    Go read the decision and try and find your “quoted” words in the text. Can’t be done, they ain’t there.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/247/330.html

    Now, I don’t know if Hendrickson concocted that pile of junk you call a quote or if it had been floating around the internet for years and he just decided to use it to fool himself and others.

    Doesn’t matter, neither he nor you have any idea of what you are talking about.

    Speaking of the legal definition of income, here ya go:

    26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined
    (a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
    (2) Gross income derived from business;
    (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
    (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (...)

    And the list goes on.

    It’s really very simple — if it isn’t later specifically exempted in the IRC, it’s income and that’s that. And as has said every single federal court that has ever ruled on it.

    Nowhere in the entire IRC will you find a word about federal privilege or any of the other nonsense Hendrickson foists on the unsuspecting public.

    The only mentions of him and his goofy theories by federal courts are to dismiss his nonsense as frivolous.

    See, the only thing that various tax protester types like without exception is the self-serving outcome — no tax due! Until you get caught.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/27/2016 2:30:30 PM PST · 168 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    Dude, you’re a self-admitted income tax evader.

    You spout Hendrickson’s “federal privilege” nonsense in post after word-salad post. You brag about finding the “truth” and thus paying no federal income taxes for 10 years. You fail to understand that every time any federal court at any level has considered his nonsense “theory,” it has been rejected. Every. Single. Time.

    Hendrickson used his rubbish on his own return and was convicted and sentenced to federal prison.

    You’re playing with fire.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/26/2016 3:33:31 AM PST · 126 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin
    Sorry, I thought you were just a run-of-the-mill, miscellaneous TP idiot.

    I didn't think you were so clueless as to be a Hendrickson sycophant. Until I read more of your TP burblings and baloney.

    It had seemed that FR had gotten rid of most of the moronic TPs. Clearly, that's wrong -- you just posted a link to Hendrickson's totally useless, totally BS site.

    A link to the site of a dope who has been convicted and sent to federal prison twice? Most recently for following his own garbage federal tax advice? The same junk that you regurgitate?

    To the same clown whose wife also went to federal prison for criminal contempt for following her goofy husband's tax advice?

    You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your stupidity.

    You need to file amended tax returns for the last 10 years. You've admitted in public that what you've filed were fraudulent returns. Using your own words from above:

    And for the record, we discovered the truth over 10 years ago, since that discovery, we educated ourselves and have applied the tax laws as they are written to every penny we take in. We file the proper forms as the law requires and in the past 10 years, we have not paid one penny in "income tax" and have not suffered any retribution for exercising our due diligence in applying the law as it is written to all earnings that come into our bank account.

    and:

    We have not hauled anything for over 10 years that is in any way connected to the federal purse, therefore, our revenue is no longer subject to the "income tax".

    All of that is totally wrong.

    I could go on but it's not necessary, you've already dug your hole plenty deep enough.

    I've got news for you. Your Hendrickson tax "truth" is total BS.

    The IRS may be slow, but they will eventually get around to you if you commit tax fraud, which is what you've been doing and recommending.

    The IRS is well aware of Hendrickson's BS (his tax gibberish has been cited by many federal judges in opinions in Hendrickson's and related cases of Hendrickson's victims/marks, you know, people like you, except that you haven't been indicted yet) which means they are also probably already aware of you and what you've been doing for the last 10 years.

    Those 10 years of fraudulent returns that you and your wife have filed?

    Subject to a $5K frivolous filing penalty each, as in both of you. Oops. That would be 100K.

    Those BS "corrected" forms (of 1099s and W-2s) you thought were so smart to file each year? Subject to a 5K frivolous filing penalty for each and every one of them.

    Trying to jerk the IRS around for the last 10 years could cost you between 100 and 200K in frivolous filing penalties alone.

    On top of the actual tax, penalties and interest that you owe. Real smart.

    Here's some free advice. Don't admit to committing federal tax crimes in public and don't advocate that others do so.

    You may very likely wind up wishing that you had listened to your long-time CPA, who you apparently brushed off, probably with some snide comment about him being "deceived" because you thought you were more enlightened and smarter than he, even though you know nothing about tax law or tax accounting.

    I have no doubt that he told you not to go down this totally stupid and silly road and that you sneered at him.

    You and anyone else with the slightest inclination to believe anything Hendrickson says should go here:

    A summary of Hendrickson's frivolous income tax BS, numerous losses in court and federal prison history

    to be totally disabused of any such notion.

    Being a TP is hazardous to your finances, family life and freedom. Unless, of course, you enjoy being broke in federal prison and having a felony criminal record when you get out.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/25/2016 10:35:13 PM PST · 125 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    I knew it, even though you were very vague. You are an idiot tax protester. Thing is, all TPs have the same, stupid stench about them and everything they say.

    I’m not gonna waste my time on your BS theories, other than to note that every single federal court that you and your ilk have ever been in and propounded your stupid junk to has told you to go pound sand. Sometimes with up to 25K in sanctions for wasting the court’s time with frivolous garbage.

    But, please feel free to continue to embarrass yourself, as I’m sure you will.

  • Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

    02/25/2016 11:37:52 AM PST · 70 of 192
    AntiScumbag to patlin

    You’re correct that the 16th gave no new power to tax. They always had the power to tax income, and so they did. Bad idea in my opinion, but my opinion doesn’t matter, it’s the law.

    Are you a tax protester? You certainly sound like one.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/24/2016 6:31:09 AM PST · 54 of 54
    AntiScumbag to Chainmail

    Well, those are wonderful thoughts straight from fantasy-land. That’s not how HVAC or any other part of the US economy works.

    For every person who will voluntarily pay more for a given product just because it was assembled in the US (which is no guarantee of higher quality, for instance witness US auto quality versus Japan or Germany in years past) there are 50 or 100 who will not. The undeniable proof of that is the success and dominance of Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc., etc.

    That spells bankruptcy for Carrier when it’s all said and done. Which means nobody at Carrier will have a job.

    Incidentally, Carrier has offered all of those who will be laid off the chance to apply for other jobs at other Carrier facilities and to pay relocation costs for those who get another Carrier job. Carrier spent money hiring and training those people who will be laid off and has an interest in retaining the best of them. And so they will.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/21/2016 8:26:15 PM PST · 52 of 54
    AntiScumbag to Chainmail
    Rather than work to crack the union's hold and renegotiate wages to stay competitive, you are all for trashing our country's industrial base

    It's got nothing to do with me and it ain't my job, I don't own Carrier. Take it up with their union. The only thing that "renegotiates" anything with a union is a threatened or actual plant closing or a threatened or actual bankruptcy.

    Hostess Brands is a good recent example from 2012. The Teamsters were told if they don't want to renegotiate the company will be put into bankruptcy and then sold off in pieces. They voted no.

    The bakers union went on strike. Now, none of them work for the old Hostess, but many of them work for the new Hostess and other buyers of pieces of the bankrupt company, all at wages that reflect reality.

    That's how it usually goes. Private sector unions have gone from almost 40% of the labor force to about 6% over the last 60-70 years. They almost always think they can continue to extort their employer forever -- until the point where they are unemployed.

    US manufacturing is at an all-time high, we just do it with a lot fewer employees. And most of it is high-tech/high-value/highly-paid stuff, not cheap consumer goods people see from China in a Walmart.

    There's no avoiding either automation or export to the non-union south or entirely out of the country of low-skill tab A in slot B assembly jobs.

    It ain't Carrier's (or anyone elses) job make anything in the US, it's their job to make a profit and stay in business. They fail to do that and nobody at Carrier will have a job.

    Got a problem with that? Blame the unions who have been chasing business south and offshore for many decades, not to mention accelerating the use of robotics. Extortion isn't a good business model.

    And save your childish insults, they make you look unserious.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/21/2016 3:10:48 PM PST · 49 of 54
    AntiScumbag to VideoDoctor

    Still waiting for any actual argument.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/21/2016 11:01:50 AM PST · 47 of 54
    AntiScumbag to VideoDoctor
    Surely you're related to either Bernie Sanders or possible [sic] an associate of Fidel Castro.

    So, your "argument" consists of nothing but a silly personal attack. Good job!

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/21/2016 10:58:28 AM PST · 46 of 54
    AntiScumbag to Chainmail
    Your beliefs are exactly like the soggy communists where the "state" is the object, not the people within.

    Rubbish. This is about Carrier and how they remain competitive. Both of their primary competitors are already well-established in Mexico.

    The union hacks would no doubt prefer to continue to extort Carrier for above-market wages for low skill jobs. They milked it for decades, now that party is over.

    Same thing they did with textiles and shoes and autos and steel and many other low skill jobs. When your labor is worth 10 bucks/hour and you're being paid 20/hour eventually that's going to come to an end.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/19/2016 6:57:09 PM PST · 41 of 54
    AntiScumbag to Chainmail
    Nice. "protect a few jobs" - like yours, maybe?

    Well, no, actually. I'm retired.

    But, I fear that you have entirely missed my point. The comment was directed at the protectionist from VA who loves to stick everyone else (like you and I) with the costs of protecting a few jobs. Maybe you should ask him about that.

    Companies have the duty to stay competitive but they also have the duty to be loyal to their own country.

    Well, no, actually they don't. You had it right with the first 6 words of your sentence. Anything beyond that is leftist rubbish.

    Tossing out 1,400 American workers in favor of Mexican workers is akin to treason

    Well, no, actually, it isn't. In any sense at all. It's called doing what is necessary to help to ensure that your business stays in business.

    The Bottom Line doesn't Trump patriotism

    You are obviously a Trump fan. Here's the deal. If it was Trump's outfit doing the layoff, he would defend it to the death, as he should. And you would probably defend him. And I would defend both of you.

    The bottom line? The bottom line trumps Trump.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/19/2016 6:22:47 PM PST · 40 of 54
    AntiScumbag to central_va
    I must have missed the part where Carrier announced a price reduction.

    Who said anything about reducing prices? The idea is that they won't have to increase prices as soon as otherwise because they're trying to drive their costs down. Even you can understand that.

    I love the free market inside and between the 50 United States just like our founders intended.

    Sure you do. As if you have any idea what freedom means. When there were 13 states you would have been there advocating tariffs against any and all additional states. Until they were admitted to the union, of course. Then they're cool, whereas the day before they weren't. If we'd been imperialists and taken Mexico (we certainly could have) I guess all would now be well with you.

    The entire problem must be that nobody understands your cute little idea of how free trade should work.

    loose [sic] everything

    The word you're looking for is "lose."

    1929 was the last year prior to enactment of Smoot-Hawley. From 1929 to 1932, GDP declined from 105 billion to 60 billion. -43%.

    US exports declined from 5.9 billion to 2 billion. -66%.

    The economy in general was very bad, but exports totally collapsed. Thanks, Smoot-Hawley. Perfect. Crush world trade. A real bang-up job of aggravating a recession unnecessarily.

    See: Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=9

    Funny that you post a chart generated by Paul Krugman to "support" your protectionist baloney without admitting that your source is a leftist site quoting a leftist chart. Good job. See:

    http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2010/9/29/one-chart-refutes-three-myths-about-us-foreign-trade.html

    I'm sure that Pat Buchanan loves your idiotic argument. Too bad for you (and Pat) that your best protectionist tariff days were somewhere between 100 and 200 years ago.

    You've debunked your own mind. Next, learn how to spell.

  • In Defense of Carrier

    02/19/2016 2:06:31 AM PST · 29 of 54
    AntiScumbag to central_va

    What took you so long to show up to yammer about promoting and protecting inefficiency?

    We know you love to protect a few jobs so that the rest of the country can pay more in the form of higher prices, right?

    Nothing like hating the free market, right? Wouldn’t want to allow anyone to make anything where they want to make it, right?

    Funny how you always claim that Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with worsening the Great Depression. Nobody else with an active synapse or two claims that. Not even Bernie is that rock-stupid.

    Provide the evidence or stop with your bogus claim. Since your delusional idea underlies almost everything you say, you need to get ready to retract it all.

  • Company boycotts Carrier in sympathy of laid off workers

    02/16/2016 1:51:08 AM PST · 83 of 89
    AntiScumbag to Bryanw92

    Bernie hates Carrier and all businesses. He’s an idiotic commie moron.

    The vacuous little dope actually thinks that Americans have too many choices of deodorants. That’s the level of sophistication of what passes for his economic “thinking.”

    And, no, Carrier didn’t put 1400 people on unemployment. At any given time there are over 5 million open jobs in the US. See the DoL JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) numbers. Now, that’s a lot less than would exist if we didn’t have jug-ears in the White House, but this economy has survived even his idiocy.

    Most of the laid-off with a brain will be employed elsewhere in short order. In any case, no job, absent an employment contract comes with any guarantee of longevity.

    It ain’t Carrier’s job to worry about anything else other than maximizing their bottom line by making products people want to buy at the lowest possible cost. They do anything else and they will end up in bankruptcy, the opinions of do-gooders and hand-wringers notwithstanding.

    And I and everyone else, including Carrier shareholders can complain all we want about the stupidity of people who think socialism is a good idea, layoffs by Carrier or anyone else notwithstanding.

  • Company boycotts Carrier in sympathy of laid off workers

    02/16/2016 1:22:04 AM PST · 82 of 89
    AntiScumbag to bjorn14

    Well, nobody, and certainly not I said you didn’t have the right to buy or not buy anything for any reason you wish. Completely up to you.

    I was pointing out the pure thuggishness of our protectionist poster.

    As for B&J, I wouldn’t buy any of their products when the stupid little commies owned it and I still won’t.

  • Company boycotts Carrier in sympathy of laid off workers

    02/14/2016 10:08:03 PM PST · 47 of 89
    AntiScumbag to central_va
    It would be a shame if US Customs had to dissemble and inspect each A/C unit for hidden contraband.

    A self-admitted protectionist wants government to enforce his agenda? What a shock. Sorta like the IRS did, eh?

    Comrade Bernie would be very proud of you.

    Alternatively, we could take your threats as a Mafia-type thing -- nice business you got there, be a shame if something happened to it.

    Same difference. You obviously hate economic freedom. All business should be conducted only by your rules.

    Guess what? If you don't own it, you have zero right to dictate where anyone produces anything.

    Get over it. We're not going back to tariffs.

  • 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.