leh-nerd skin-erd

I’ve previously pointed out the elements of wealth redistribution in the American system as it exists. That was your original hot button issue. In regards to tax generally, I’m a supporter of progressive tax policy, which by design increases contributions as income increases. It has nothing to do with some silly concept like “fair share”, just a recognition that things must be paid for. I’d sure love the tax rate to be adjusted downwards, and would love to see an overhaul where we had some reason to believe waste and abuse wasn’t a problem, but that’s a different discussion. By applying your theory as outlined here, I would have been for the abolishment of all tax or redistributive programs. That’s silly, as silly say as a Canadian citizen declaring the system the best in the world, while private paying for life-changing or life-saving treatment in a foreign land. Carry on.

I agree this is a very bad idea, favoring shorter term mortgages of 10-15 years. Or, in some cases, a 30 paid down over a much shorter period of time. That said, part of the problem we have is many people undervalue the notion of $150/ month saved over an extended period of time, and adjusted periodically as wages grow. Interestingly, the same $150/mo at 7% over that period of time exceeds $700k. At 8%, the hypothetical buyer has over a million in the account. Inflation is a huge factor, of course.

Oh goodness….you’re spiraling with this talk of devils and kings. Take a breath, secure in the knowledge that after every 936 posts about your neighbor to the south, you come up with a tepid criticism on politics in your own country. In that regard, Trudeau may be the biggest a$$ in Canadian history, but you seem determined to make a run for the title. Godspeed.

I think you’re confused. You specifically mentioned Canada and policies unique to your country several times. Canadian carbon tax. Canadian rebates. How Trump hated Trudeau. Canada and d food stamps. I mentioned Canada and its socialist approach to Haitian refugees. Just like the Canadian people don’t seem to want food stamps, they don’t seem to want Haitians. That’s odd, because Socialist governments would typically embrace immigrants, but maybe they have to be the right kind of immigrant. Anyway, you don’t want to talk about, I can understand. Yes, there are elements of our way of life that involved redistribution of wealth. Taxes. Foreign aid. That sort of thing.

You mentioned Canadian carbon tax. I assumed you rejected the Haitians (partly) because of their carbon footprint on the way from their to your country.

@muppy I am NOT, repeat NOT down with this.

You don’t have many Haitians either. https://www.sfltimes.com/news/haitians-facing-deportation-flee-to-canada-but-are-turned-away#google_vignette “There are limits,” Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters. “We have to be human, but realistic. Canada can’t accept everyone.”

I would think that a gait match of 94-97% has all the hallmarks of proof that some intelligence operatives may have been involved. Now, seriously, I know a guy who sold his security business quite a few years ago. Prior to selling, he was telling me that they were working on some “very high-tech CSI” information including body language analysis. He did not mention gate analysis. I’ll wait and see, and don’t see these guys as the final source of truth and justice (in line with other media types) but I would not be surprised in the least.

Your readers may be few, but they are committed to disparaging you relentlessly. You have to respect that. I appreciate your commentary, and you might be right on this. Or, wrong, in which case, see above.

Great question, Mumplestilskin. I'm at the mercy off the reporting (or lack thereof) as to current status of tariffs. One report suggests $90 billion has been collected and the proceeds are held by the US Treasury. That same report suggested refunds might well be in order if the SC determines his actions were beyond the scope of his authority. I imagine that will be a pretty serious cluster***. I saw another report that suggested $195b has been collected. From my perspective, we'll know when we know, and deal with the fallout when it happens.

You keep bringing it up, Tibs. Let it go.

I understand that you may be incapable of juggling multiple thoughts at the same time, but others can. To break it down so you understand— by you, I mean you. By others, I mean me (and others).

You sent a link over, I read the link, read up on the guy and offered thoughts on the situation as he described it. You’re not restricted from discussing nuances—well, you might be because you’re a simpleton taking marching orders from your betters. I’m not. It is ok to think deeper, dig deeper, and have conversations. This is how we learn, and it may have helped you avoid losing your shirt when you went all in with your Beanie Babies investment at the top of the market.

You sound like a politician with your talk of 'headwinds'. What he actually seems to say is that onerous governmental regulation in NY and NJ has impacted his ability to thrive, and that seemingly was a problem before Trump was elected. Add to that a change in consumer preference, it sounds like he was on a downhill roll before the tariffs were levied. I wonder if, absent the issues he was already facing, the tariffs are less of a concern.

Gloves back on! Apologies in advance retroactively! I’m sorry for tomorrow, too!

I read up a bit on VOS Selections and Schwartz’s concerns. I certainly can feel for the guy, he worked hard, built a business and the uncertainty with the tariffs has got to be very difficult. In one interview, he also mentioned that his margins were already very thin due to the regulatory situation in NY and NJ. His business is required to post pricing for his product a month in advance, and with product/market conditions fluctuating, things turn south. He also mentioned that consumer habits are shifting away from wine consumption, or maybe at least the services he offers. It sounds like he’s got an uphill battle regardless of the outcome of the tariff discussion. I wonder what he thinks about the political situation in NYC, and if things get better or worse even if he prevails in this case.

Did anyone have the camera pitched at an odd angle, shooting up into the bottom of their nose? That’s always pleasant.

I can only share what I think and how I feel, it's up to you to interpret how you feel about how I feel using your Official Lens of Virtue and ACME Purity Decoder ring.

You just indicated there were “skeletons” and now you’re not sure? Here’s the problem for you—-I’m applying your standards to you, and it seems to bother you. In that regard, you’re no better than the person who proudly declares “I’m a Christian!” while filching from the collection plate, stealing cable from the house next door, and keeping a little side hustle across town. You’re Jerry Swaggart (Jimmy’s cousin from Mississauga) hitting the strip clubs and calculating how much you can drink to stay just below the legal limit. I vote for the candidate who offers a platform overall that is in the best interest of me and my family. That’s pretty much it. I don’t pretend they are holy, pure or above reproach as you do. I’m not interested in lying to myself. That leads directly to where we are now, with you stumbling around trying to cross reference your evolving positions to limit the appearance of hypocrisy.

Your original declaration: 1. It is 100% wrong and potentially illegal to lie by any politician. Then, when pressed, you run with the less liarly liar argument as expected. Then, predictably, the old honest "as far as you know" approach, with only a few "skeletons" that you are personally comfortable overlooking. We already did this, and your argument was as pedestrian then as it is now.

Sounds like we're on the same page. Vote. Donate to your cause. Don't storm buildings. Follow the law. Don't threaten people. This is what you do in a democracy. The extreme left is dangerous. The extreme right is dangerous. When you voted against Trudeau, were your candidates pure as the driven snow? Were they ever accused of exaggeration or manipulation? Were any controversial or misleading statements made when considered from the position of all stakeholders? Kindly advise.

You fretting over whether or not a President has the power to pardon, then doubling down with silly conspiracy theories is not a debate. There are times I have hope that somewhere deep inside your completely oblivious self, there is a slightly less stupid person screaming to be heard. This isn't one of those times.

Certainly nothing precludes you from making a sign for your next Silver Sneakers Protest and Turkey Shoot. Beyond that, what you favor is pretty much irrelevant. If ignorance was criminal, you would have to register as a felonious bumpkin. Say hello to the fam for me.

Years 1-10 of the Trudeau era…what did you do about it? With regard to Trump, you’re covering ground we have already covered. It’s not illegal for a President to pardon a convicted criminal.

Belated apologies in advance. Now I’ve seen everything.