iwishiwascool

By "look bad" you mean "show the exact same data and outcome using different colors". Got it.

Tripple for the win. I can almost guarantee that none of my facts, figures and actual fucking data will influence a single one of you. Why? Because what you have posted feels right (#1). Your visceral response to the changing demographics of the country are forcing you and political pundits to seek out some universal theory of democratic squander. Your anecdotal responses prove nothing more than your excessive interaction with those people who are, in-fact, milking the system. My advice? Pay slightly higher taxes and move to a zip-code where you don't have to interact with the insufferable poor.

You're an idiot. Here is a diagram of the net taker states. Those whose tax revenue was less than their federal subsidies: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Images/makers-takers.jpg Here is an electoral college distribution; conveniently red here also represents republican votes: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep19.png See any correlation? Further, the notion that testing welfare receipients is some panacea curing "75%" of the problem is a joke. Here's what my neighbor state Florida found: It cost far more money than it saved I agree that welfare needs to be reformed but let's start with the biggest piece of the pie.

Holy shit. I just made a whole bunch of money while you all bitched about how jealous you are of poor people. Dirty effing poor people. 10% of "entitlement spending" or what was once called the social safety net goes to non-working poor. That's not 10% of your tax burden, that is 10% of welfare spending. If you wanted to capture a picture of the "average" welfare receipient, you have a far better chance of seeing a disabled or elderly person's sad dirty face. The top 1%of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population. Do you get what that says? The US spends 50% more on corporate welfare than all of social welfare. You guys are directing your aggression at those who don't have the resources and influences that those who are really milking you have. Adjust your lens and take a look at who is stoking your rage. "It used to be we waged war on poverty, not poor people"

Except this wasn't in front of Congress and his daughter was not at Sandy Hook. Either way, keep stroking. Edit, I'm referring to the first video.

Salesforce, WifiFinder, FB, Pandora, Runkeeper, Zillow. In that order.

Another one: When I bought my Evo, I was particularly young looking. They assigned me the dopey salesman who was new and knew nothing, assuming some young kid wouldn't be buying the car in the middle of the showroom. I came prepared with the price from a socal dealer who had bought up inventory to have dibs on the next model (the 10) and a shipping quote of an enclosed car carrier. They matched it and I drove away paying far less than most. I actually sold that car for only slightly less than I paid more than 2 years later.

I think you can have integrity and still negotiate. Does it take integrity to pay retail at a big box store whose CEO makes millions? I had a relationship with some salesman at HHGreg. I had access to the cost price lists that they were paying minus any bulk kick backs they may have been receiving. I bought all my TVs and a mattress there over the years, all price matched to my cost price. I saved thousands, the salesman got his commissions and the store made a bit on volume kickbacks. Instead of paying an online retailer, I helped a dude in a red shirt get a little closer to his monthly quota.

If it is a renovation for a home office it's deductible, but if you sell you'll have to pay taxes on the depreciated value. Edit, You have to have income associated with the home office. The value of the improvements can't be greater than the amount of the associated income.

I was being sarcastic. The Apollo is a $1000 cd player for a home stereo: 2 channel listening.

I'm sure he has plenty of experience with the Rega Apollo. It's a local favorite of Cleveland Ave residents.

I took over for Pat when he left. Lauren Murphy if you want to cyber stalk her.

It should also be mentioned that Mike was Progressive Audio's president for the last million years. I'd argue that Mike is more of what Progressive Audio was than the newer owner was (Even though I still really like him). Jon knows what he's doing too even though he is a 30 year old man boy. Those things are built like tanks, have you popped the cover off to take a look at what might be wrong with it or is just not powering up?

One of My LLCs is transitioning to an S-Corp right now. I'll just forward your comments to my CPA.

I 100% agree with lowering taxes on small businesses and lowering capital gains on start-up and small business investment. Not that there is a lack of funding for good ideas right now, but it may free up even more capital for companies like mine who want to take outside capital to expand faster (though I personally don't). The corporate reaction to the ACA was a calculated ploy to influence the SCOTUS and legislators. It didn't work. Now you only hear fringe CEOs bring it up, many of whom are far more informed on how to sell franchises than how their books work.

I like Boiler Room too.

Huckabee is the most notable proponent of the FairTax, was it a stretch? Is your mouth foaming yet? No economist would identify himself as a Keynesian, or Supply sider for that matter. The economic models are far more nuanced and complex than early 20th century economists could have imagined. Keynesians have divided into hundreds of different directions. The commonality behind Von Mises institute attendees is that they use their politics to inform their economics, not the other way around. It's easy when you reject using math to prove your philosophy. The broken widow fallacy is really great at exploiting the intuitive belief that Macroeconomics should operate just like a Microeconomic model. It works on people that don't understand things like the fact quantitative easing has less to do with the increasing liquidity than it does with battling deflation; That trillion dollar coins are just as ridiculous as a limit imposed on spending that has already been authorized by the people enforcing the limit; that deficit spending is exactly how this country came to a prosperous nation. Let me ask this: Do you think that austerity will have a positive impact on growth?

An ad hominem response indicating that you can not intellectually contest a single point. I am intimately familiar with the Austrian School of economics. I like that you took the cover of Hazlitt's book to mean that you do not need to confront yourself with a single dissenting opinion. It explains a lot, especially your reference to the outdated term: "Keynesian Economist". The Austrian School does not factor in the economic reality of hoarding and fails to recognize the reality and domestic impact of globalism. Translation: The Austrian School did not anticipate that despite positive economic indicators, favorable consumer confidence, and the lowest taxes in decades. The Austrian model (if they actually used mathematic models) would predict domestic injection of private capital. The reality is that is remains on the sidelines in unprecedented magnitude. If those dollars were actually being injected into the economy, then we could argue who spends it more effectively. It's not and you simply cannot argue otherwise. Your "broken window fallacy" mentality is a reflection of the simplicity sought by Free Market enthusiasts; unfortunately, as is often the case, simplicity is confused with clarity. At no point did I state that nothing should be done, I've agreed with most of the people who have put actual ideas into the argument. Most of those things do need to be done but not yet. With 5%+ growth year over year and some structural fixes to the reason for the fragility, I definitely believe some austerity will be necessary.

Well this certainly turned into a circle-jerk in my absence. Put that cracker away, I'm back. The first thing I'd say in our F2F meeting is: "You have no idea what you are talking about." What exactly is a Keynesian Economist? Most all economists agree that government stimulus and tax cuts have a stimulative impact on the economy, the disagreement is in which is better; not whether either approach is real. Likewise, most all economists agree that austerity measures will reduce economic output in direct proportion to said cuts. That's not opinion, it's math. Economic contraction, at the very least, reduces consumer confidence and ripples through the economy by reducing consumption. This is why austerity impacts economic growth as a multiple of the actual cuts. Cutting spending during economic contraction or a fragile recovery is dumb. Nothing that you feel or uninformed opinions swirling around your head will change that. A Fairtax and/or flat tax are by definition regressive, they impact the middle and poor classes far more than the do upper income earners. The poorer you are the greater your consumption as a percentage of your income, as much as 100% at the bottom. Most all of this is necessity. Upper income earners, whose necessity spending is a tiny fraction of their overall wealth, also have non-consumption vehicles to avoid a tax all together. It does not make sense to put the highest burden to pay the bills on those who can least afford it, does it? It might feel "fair" but it doesn't work as an economic model, despite what Mike Huckabee is telling you. The notion that a CEO will fire employees just because his personal taxes went up is a joke. As if a CEO is some punitive vengeful prick who reacts like a toddler whose toy was taken away. Employees are a function of demand. Let's say you are the CEO of a company that makes widgets mostly purchased by the middle class. Projected demand for 2013 is 10MM widgets. Just then, your taxes go up 4% but the middle class taxes remained the same. Demand for my widgets remains 10MM, regardless of how pissed I might be about my 4% tax increase, I still need the same number of employees to manufacture those widgets. Reducing employment to punish lawmakers would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Personally, I would not notice if my taxes increased 4, 5, or even 7%. High functioning income earners don't say, "whelp, I might as well just give up" when faced with an obstacle. The reason they are high function income earners is because they are accustom to overcoming these types of obstacles. If I did notice the increase, I would ask myself what I have to do to increase my revenue to overcome the difference. Applying the mentality of pencil pushers and the mediocre to those who thrive on success is just silly. Those CEOs who get on CNBC and play into it are doing it to manipulate you.

I wouldn't seem as smart IRL. My facts are only vaguely remembered and require internet confirmation. I live on the beach 800 miles away but if one of my Cbus visits lines up with a CR meetup, I'll attend.

I agree with most of your suggestions on austerity, just not now. Every percent of government spending pulled out of the economy causes an equal contraction in GDP. Now is not the time to institute austerity. If any lesson from the European financial crisis can be learned it is that. A flat tax is, by nature regressive. Meaning it impacts poor people far more dramatically than the rich. A flat tax would put immenely more pressure on the middle class. As for the poor, it would create far more dependency on social safety nets or, as some conservatives would have it, old people dying on the streets. I'm not saying it is greedy to complain about taxes, I'm saying it's naive.

No, raising taxes in a contraction is just as dumb. Thats why I said exactly that 3 pages ago.

This.

Right, he and 99% of economists agree that austerity would damage our already fragile recovery. You believe austerity is good for an economy?

Let's define some "BS" programs and spending. Surely if we can reduce tax rates AND be solvent, you can name a few big ones.