Obama champions free trade

[JD50]

Yeah, i'm sure you don't care what most conservatives do or don't do or that you're a supporter of progressive taxation

On allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30175486&postcount=169

You can just feel the liberalism springing from that post.

You know, if you're going to lie, make it plausible. JD50FUCKINGFAIL.txt

And you're STILL avoiding the logical fallacy that you still can't answer.

You found a post of me rolling my eyes, wow, wtf is that supposed to prove?

 

[JD50]

http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=31301471

LMAO

More JD50Fail.txt

What a fucking liar.

1. Fix your link.

2. If you found an old post of mine where I was against the progressive tax then congratulations, you've found something where I've changed my position. I used to be against a progressive tax, I used to also support the GOP and vote Republican. Things change.

 

[JD50]

Phokus, do you realize that you come off as a raving lunatic? You have so much anger and aggression in your posts it's almost scary.

 

[Phokus]

1. Fix your link.

2. If you found an old post of mine where I was against the progressive tax then congratulations, you've found something where I've changed my position. I used to be against a progressive tax, I used to also support the GOP and vote Republican. Things change.

1. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31301471&postcount=96 Same post, not quoted

2. Yeah i bet you changed. It's funny how you come out guns blazing about 'not caring what conservatives do or don't do' to saying you're 'for progressive taxation' to bitching about liberals trying to raise taxes on the rich in that link (WHICH btw, isn't even 2 weeks old).

Are you some bi-polar p&n poster?

Again, if you're going to lie, MAKE IT PLAUSIBLE

 

[Phokus]

Phokus, do you realize that you come off as a raving lunatic? You have so much anger and aggression in your posts it's almost scary.

*backtrack backtrack backtrack*

P.S., you essentially agree with a p&n poster that thinks China trade policies equate to 'free trade' when the overwhelming majority of evidence says they engage in anything BUT free trade. That's lunacy.

Also, still haven't addressed logical fallacies.

 

[JD50]

1. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31301471&postcount=96 Same post, not quoted

2. Yeah i bet you changed. It's funny how you come out guns blazing about 'not caring what conservatives do or don't do' to saying you're 'for progressive taxation' to bitching about liberals trying to raise taxes on the rich in that link (WHICH btw, isn't even 2 weeks old).

Are you some bi-polar p&n poster?

Again, if you're going to lie, MAKE IT PLAUSIBLE

So wait a minute. You're saying that because I agree with progressive taxation that I should also agree with raising taxes on the rich?

I'm fine with progressive taxation. I do not think that taxes should be raised right now. Is that difficult for you to understand?

 

[Phokus]

So wait a minute. You're saying that because I agree with progressive taxation that I should also agree with raising taxes on the rich?

I'm fine with progressive taxation. I do not think that taxes should be raised right now. Is that difficult for you to understand?

Many of the rich pay less taxes than I do as a percentage of their income. Ergo, if you're against raising taxes on the rich, you're against progressive taxation, in our current state. And it wasn't just that one post, but you framed yourself as some independent or moderate who didn't give a shit about conservativism, when it's clear that's not really the case.

 

[JD50]

*backtrack backtrack backtrack*

P.S., you essentially agree with a p&n poster that thinks China trade policies equate to 'free trade' when the overwhelming majority of evidence says they engage in anything BUT free trade. That's lunacy.

Also, still haven't addressed logical fallacies.

I'm not sure how you see that as backtracking. I also think you're having problems understanding what I originally quoted and why I thought eskimospy's post was a good post. Eskimospy pwned you, now you're just lashing out. It's late, you're probably drunk, and I'm going to bed.

Angry drunks are the worst.

 

[Phokus]

I'm not sure how you see that as backtracking. I also think you're having problems understanding what I originally quoted and why I thought eskimospy's post was a good post. Eskimospy pwned you, now you're just lashing out. It's late, you're probably drunk, and I'm going to bed.

Angry drunks are the worst.

At least i'm not a liar and i honestly express my views instead of trying to get around something that stumps me by LYING about it.

Anyone can say someone 'pwned' someone without actually explaining how. You essentially believe China practices free trade like he does. He doesn't even back up his assertions. That makes you dumb as fuck.

Also still waiting for the answer on the logical fallacy that eskimo threw out (WITHOUT EVEN ANY STUDIES TO BACK IT UP).

 

[JD50]

Many of the rich pay less taxes than I do as a percentage of their income. Ergo, if you're against raising taxes on the rich, you're against progressive taxation, in our current state. And it wasn't just that one post, but you framed yourself as some independent or moderate who didn't give a shit about conservativism, when it's clear that's not really the case.

I think the loopholes that allow the rich to pay less taxes then they should need to be closed. I don't think right now is the time to do it. I also don't agree with the way people like you demonize the rich. I really don't care how that relates to conservatism and how conservatives are supposed to think. I listen to local sports talk during my 15 minute commute and I don't watch any cable news, so I really have no idea what "conservatives" are saying or thinking nowadays.

PhokusPhail.txt

Goodnight Phokus.

 

[JD50]

At least i'm not a liar and i honestly express my views instead of trying to get around something that stumps me by LYING about it.

Anyone can say someone 'pwned' someone without actually explaining how. You essentially believe China practices free trade like he does. He doesn't even back up his assertions. That makes you dumb as fuck.

Also still waiting for the answer on the logical fallacy that eskimo threw out (WITHOUT EVEN ANY STUDIES TO BACK IT UP).

I didn't lie, nice try though. I don't think that taxes should be raised during a recession, many of your fellow liberals have said the same thing. I guess they're conservatives too in your world. You stopped making sense a long time ago, it's more amusing now than anything else.

 

[Phokus]

I think the loopholes that allow the rich to pay less taxes then they should need to be closed. I don't think right now is the time to do it. I also don't agree with the way people like you demonize the rich. I really don't care how that relates to conservatism and how conservatives are supposed to think. I listen to local sports talk during my 15 minute commute and I don't watch any cable news, so I really have no idea what "conservatives" are saying or thinking nowadays.

PhokusPhail.txt

Goodnight Phokus.

Yes, run away. Also, it's not 'loopholes', it's mostly because they earn their money via capital gains, which is taxed lower than regular income.

For example, Top 400 incomes paid an effective tax of 17%, which is lower than what i and my wife paid. Warren Buffet has repeatedly stated he has a lower proportional tax burden than his secretary.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/17/a-look-at-the-tax-returns-of-the-top-400-taxpayers/

If you're against raising taxes against the wealthiest Americans when they pay less than the middle class, then you're against progressive taxation. Words have meaning. JD50Fail.

 

[Phokus]

I didn't lie, nice try though. I don't think that taxes should be raised during a recession, many of your fellow liberals have said the same thing. I guess they're conservatives too in your world. You stopped making sense a long time ago, it's more amusing now than anything else.

These two thoughts are incompatible:

1) You're 'for' progressive taxation

2) Many of the rich pay lower taxes in proportion than the middle class.

Again, stop LYING. You're 'not conservative' schtick is dumb and transparent.

 

[JD50]

Yes, run away. Also, it's not 'loopholes', it's mostly because they earn their money via capital gains, which is taxed lower than regular income.

For example, Top 400 incomes paid an effective tax of 17%, which is lower than what i paid. Warren Buffet has repeatedly stated he has a lower tax burden than his secretary.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/17/a-look-at-the-tax-returns-of-the-top-400-taxpayers/

If you're against raising taxes against the wealthiest Americans when they pay less than the middle class, then you're against progressive taxation. Words have meaning. JD50Fail.

I think the capital gains tax needs to be looked at but I don't think that it should be the same as the income tax. I understand that taxes will need to be raised, but again, I don't think now is the time to do it. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding this.

 

[JD50]

These two thoughts are incompatible:

1) You're 'for' progressive taxation

2) Many of the rich pay lower taxes in proportion than the middle class.

Again, stop LYING. You're 'not conservative' schtick is dumb and transparent.

I'm seeing a common theme here. Eskimospy had to repeat the same thing to you multiple times until he realized that you just don't read what people actually type, then he gave up.

I don't think the rich should pay lower taxes than the middle class. That needs to be looked at and fixed. I don't think now is the time to raise taxes. We are in a recession. Raising taxes in a recession is not really a good idea. I believe that most economists agree with that so naturally you'll disagree.

 

[Phokus]

I think the capital gains tax needs to be looked at but I don't think that it should be the same as the income tax. I understand that taxes will need to be raised, but again, I don't think now is the time to do it. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding this.

I'm having a hard time understanding your warped position because we have a tax system that's fairly REGRESSIVE right now between the middle class and rich. You don't even want to raise taxes so it's closer to a flatter tax. That's why i'm having a hard time believing you when you say you're 'for' progressive taxation. Again, if you're going to lie, MAKE IT PLAUSIBLE.

 

[Phokus]

I'm seeing a common theme here. Eskimospy had to repeat the same thing to you multiple times until he realized that you just don't read what people actually type, then he gave up.

Why don't you point to me. He kept saying that China had one of the 'least' restrictive trade policies. I kept showing him, point by point, that's not the case (export subsidies, import tariffs, currency manipulation, direct subsidies). And he kept saying 'least restrictive least restrictive!' over and over again. Just because you say it without backing it up doesn't make it true.

Why don't you answer the question that he doesn't seem capable of answering correctly, is China an example of free trade and PROVIDE REASONS WHY. Note: This will involve warping reality where the following doesn't exist: export subsidies, import tariffs, currency manipulation, direct subsidies

 

[JD50]

I'm having a hard time understanding your warped position because we have a tax system that's fairly REGRESSIVE right now between the middle class and rich. You don't even want to raise taxes so it's closer to a flatter tax. That's why i'm having a hard time believing you when you say you're 'for' progressive taxation.

Phokus, we are in a recession. You don't raise taxes in a recession. Everyone knows this.

 

[Phokus]

Phokus, we are in a recession. You don't raise taxes in a recession. Everyone knows this

LMAO, there we go again:

http://www.ny.frb.org/research/economists/eggertsson/ContractionaryTaxes.pdf

Really... everyone?

Again, this relates to your logical fallacy that you explicitly refuse to answer.

Ducati, who doesn't even like me on ideological grounds got this right:

Is it awesome because he essentially admits to a couple of logical fallacies in his argument?

 

[Schadenfroh]

More good news from Obama's foreign relations department.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-usa-colombia-obama-idUSTRE7367UA20110407

President Barack Obama said Thursday that a deal over labor rights had cleared the way to advance a long-delayed trade pact with Colombia

Looks like all that is left is to send the Columbian Free Trade pact to congress for approval.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Update, it is getting closer, it will be voted upon by the Senate committee overseeing it today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-usa-trade-congress-idUSTRE75T1VX20110630

President Barack Obama's push to win approval of long-stalled U.S. free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama will face its first test on Thursday afternoon in the Senate Finance Committee.

Sadly, Republican opposition is heavy. I thought they were supposed to support free trade?

Four of the 11 Republicans on the panel, usually the staunchest backers of free trade, plan to vote against the South Korea accord if the White House insists on including a retraining program they oppose for workers displaced by trade.

Not to mention, hostilities from the Democratic party and Unions that fear jobs will be outsourced:

Obama is defying many members of his own party in seeking congressional approval of the three trade pacts and needs the renewal of the retraining program to appeal to fellow Democrats who blame trade deals for the loss of American job.
...
Democrats are upset that an action plan negotiated by the White House to address labor and violence concerns in Colombia is not part of the formal implementing legislation for that trade deal.

But, it is necessary to remain competitive in the global market:

The three agreements together are expected to boost U.S. exports by about $13 billion, which Obama has said will help create tens of thousands of new American jobs.
...
A trade deal between the European Union and South Korea goes into force on Friday and another between Canada and Colombia in August, putting pressure on Congress to act.

 

[EagleKeeper]

when you bundle many options to please some; you also get plenty of opposition that can also kill a bill.

A bill should be able to stand on its own for its merits; without any sweeteners.