BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 16, 2018, 09:52:57 PM
There is an endless array of federal, state, and local laws, rules, fees, filing requirements, you name it.  That you'd better be aware of, or else.

For starters, all the various laws passed that supposedly benefit employees - ADA;  Minimum wage;  Family Leave.  These are all well meaning, and while the media reports on a couple key items, they run thousands of pages - and every employer had better be aware of what's in them.  It's exhaustive keeping up.

Then there's the expensive time wasting requirements that don't provide anyone with anything of value.  Sarbanes-Oxley.  All the new banking regulations.  SOX was implemented by a Congress that wanted to ''do something'' after Enron, et al.  Had SOX been in existence, it wouldn't have prevented a thing. 

The 2008 meltdown was a result of Andrew Cuoma at HUD removing credit requirements so ''poor people'' could buy houses, Goldman Sachs selling fraudulent sub-prime mortgage backed securities as AAA investments, and AIG selling SWAPS to investors that didn't own the underlying securities.  Instead of addressing that, they put more reporting requirements on banks.

Try selling goods in California.  Go take a look at the quarterly sales tax return.  There is a basic statewide rate that goes to the state government, then every county adds their own rate, which varies from country to county, and a good number of cities add whatever they've managed to pass onto it as well.  I don't recall, but I'm guessing water districts, fire districts, school districts, park districts, and who all ever else can tack on a bit as well.  The poor slob who owns a business with customers all over the state gets to try to determine how much to collect from who, keep a record of it, figure out how to fill out the form, and send it in. 

There are plenty of dumb environment laws, plenty of dumb safety laws, plenty of dumb laws affecting businesses in general.  Because it's one size fits all, and everyone has to comply, whether it makes sense for their business or not. 

There are inspections, forms to fill out, fees, deadlines, everything right down to the number of parking spaces in your parking lot, and who can park where. 

No one has time for this shit.  They are requirements that don't cost the legislators a thing - and they exempt themselves - but cost everyone else a ton of time, energy, and expense.  People get tired, and either leave the state or offshore the business.

That's enough to keep you busy, you get the idea.

Why would people subject themselves when they don't have to?

I asked for 10 specific 'laws' or regulations.  Not general areas of laws or regulations and I certainly did not ask for the unhinged rant after that.  Sorry, but this is not an answer.

This is a specific regulation (I asked for 10 examples of these that are useless):
Canada Labour Code - Occupational Health & Safety:

14.20 (1) Before motorized or manual materials handling equipment is used for the first time in a work place, the employer shall set out in writing instructions on the inspection, testing and maintenance of that materials handling equipment.

https://twitter.com/JasonKander/status/954419909081157633

Quote from: Swishypants on January 10, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
They're rural and rugged individualists. They're strong. And the rural infrastructure will be left in-tact. You haven't ever thought about this? Really? You don't understand that people like that hold the real power because they can do the things that you can not? They train for years to do this shit!

Do you remember when 3,000 members of SF wrote a letter to Obama and told him that if he moved on Gun Control they would not be happy? See any new gun laws? He knew with whom not to fuck!

Swishypants, I've heard that you're so gay that even gay people discriminate against you.  Is this true?

Another view of Antifa (and groups like them)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzKv5gjOzTA

Quote from: albrecht on January 10, 2018, 04:38:29 PM
They need to sort this "loop hole" out also:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-island-where-chinese-mothers-deliver-american-babies-1513852203

It happens in British Columbia as well.

Quote from: 21st Century Man on January 10, 2018, 02:32:23 AM
136, you have the gall to ask questions when you don't answer any?  Why did revenue go up after the Reagan tax cuts?  I do want to also emphasize that the House which remained Democratic during the Reagan years is responsible for appropriations and the budget not the Senate.

I don't know why you bother posting on this website if you don't like to engage with conservatives.  They are the only ones responding to you.

Has there ever been a question you asked me that I haven't answered?  And please don't reply 'this one.'  I explained that already.

Quote from: 21st Century Man on January 10, 2018, 02:32:23 AM
136, you have the gall to ask questions when you don't answer any?  Why did revenue go up after the Reagan tax cuts?  I do want to also emphasize that the House which remained Democratic during the Reagan years is responsible for appropriations and the budget not the Senate.

I don't know why you bother posting on this website if you don't like to engage with conservatives.  They are the only ones responding to you.

I would answer you on this, but I've already made an agreement over my answering this.  So, you'll have to wait.

As to the Senate and the House, you need to either learn both the difference between de jure and de facto (in regards to who actually has primary responsibility, the President or Congress), or you need to learn about the workings of Congress - money/budget bills originate in the House, but both the House and Senate have equal power in regards to reconciliation.  In reality, the budgets that 'originated' in the House, was the one sent up by President Reagan.  The House then worked with that budget as the starting point. 

Of course, it's possible for the House to just toss out the President's budget completely, but the President sending up the initial budget proposal does show that the idea that Congress (starting with the House) is responsible for the budget, is only de jure true, and not de facto true.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 10, 2018, 01:09:34 AM
Sure, list them.  I'm going to bed, but I'll respond after work tomorrow

All three of these were replies to specific questions you were asked, and you dodged them by stating (not your direct words, but definitely the gist, and the way I phrase it here fits what I wrote earlier about the ways you dodge answering questions.):
1.If you're unaware of this, I can't help you.
2.Everybody already knows this, and I don't have to prove it.
3.The claims are 'fake news.'

1.I'm obviously talking about the unnecessary, burdensome laws.  If you're unaware any even exist, I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to run down a list for you.  All those companies that complain about them are probably lying.

Humor me anyway and list 10 of them.

2. Go look at population figures over the past couple of decades, and compare that to the growth in California state expenditures.  All those newer residents either work directly for government, or work in companies that supply them, feed them, report on their doings, etc.

Provide actual evidence for this claim about 'all those newer residents.'  I don't think that actually should be too hard.  However, it wouldn't involve looking over the growth in California state expenditures but in looking up the industries the people in Sacramento work for. If such information isn't available, you actually have zero evidence to back up your claim.  You could look over any city in California that has had population growth over the last couple decades and look at the growth in California expenditures and make a similar claim. As the line goes, correlation is not causation.

3.Because the Fake News Media played up the capping of the deduction of various state taxes, specifically property taxes and state income taxes.

Of course that's what the average person here who actually works and pays taxes is going to focus on - it's the narrative the pretend journalists have put out there.  So, duh, the House Republicans from Cali have to play politics on the issue.  The truth is, it's a good bill for everyone. 

Please show some calculations to back up your claim that the capping of the deductions isn't a real issue.  I think people can figure out for themselves (or with the help of an accountant) how their taxes will change and would be unlikely to fall for inaccurate media reports.  I'm aware that the capping of the deductions will mainly effect those with incomes of $100,000 or higher, however, since you clearly believe that cutting taxes for the wealthiest benefits everyone, please also explain then how the capping of these deductions can be 'good for everyone.'

That brings us down to January 1st.  If you actually answer these, we'll continue. We have another 7 weeks of your posts to go through after this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also wonder about this (not that this is necessarily a contradiction, but I think it's fair to ask you to explain how you can believe both - and post them on the same day.  As per our agreement, you're not obligated to answer this.)

Like I said, you can't quite grasp the idea that our head of government is not a dictator.  Part of the brilliance of separation of powers is it doesn't matter what the president wants, his powers are limited.

but also

The president - any president - is the comander-in-chief, the top legislator (nothing goes into law without his signature), the top diplomat, the head of his party, the head of the government, the chief negotiater of treaties and trade agreements, the top police official, and etc.

Those are limited powers?

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 10, 2018, 01:09:34 AM
Sure, list them.  I'm going to bed, but I'll respond after work tomorrow

I edited to add: I'll note however, that my full answer would be quite lengthy as I'd address both the Reagan tax cuts and the latest tax cuts, and you've already written before something to the effect of you don't read my posts because they're too long.

So, if you were telling the truth about that, I'm not sure there is any point in making this offer.  However, it might help, hopeless retard, when asking people to back up their claims if you didn't make replies like "if you don't already know the answer to that, I can't help you."  Of course, when you do actually do give replies, it's usually along the lines that every contrary point is 'fake news' or some other completely unhinged and hopelessly retarded conspiracy theory.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 10, 2018, 01:04:17 AM
Liar

Projection

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 10, 2018, 12:57:03 AM
You make the same static Keynsian comment about Trump's tax cuts ''increasing the deficit'' that the static Keynsians made about Reagan's tax cuts.  That they and you keep repeating the same tired accusations that were heartily refuted last time around, when the result was federal tax receipts doubling over eight years, amazes me. 

If you're going to insist that's the case this time, tell us what's different from last time when you guys were so wrong?  Or are we just supposed to take your word for it, put a Democrat in next time, and have them run the economy into the ground based on an ignorant world view?

I'll make a clear offer to you, hopeless retard, you answer all the questions that you've dodged (say over the last two months of so), and I'll answer you on this.

I'll note however, that my full answer would be quite lengthy as I'd address both the Reagan tax cuts and the latest tax cuts, and you've already written before something to the effect of you don't read my posts because they're too long.

So, if you were telling the truth about that, I'm not sure there is any point in making this offer.  However, it might help, hopeless retard, when asking people to back up their claims if you didn't make replies like "if you don't already know the answer to that, I can't help you."  Of course, when you do actually do give replies, it's usually along the lines that every contrary point is 'fake news' or some other completely unhinged and hopelessly retarded conspiracy theory.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 10, 2018, 12:17:31 AM
Standard comment when you have no idea - pretend you don't respond to my posts.

Why do you think I keep tossing out the incorrect Senate makeup during the Reagan years before I post something I know you'll pretend to have an answer for but won't respond to?

1.The only response I give to your posts is to keep pointing out that I'm not interested in having a discussion with you.

2.You can't "keep tossing out the incorrect Senate makeup during the Reagan years" since this is the first time you've done it (that I've seen) since I pointed out to you that you were wrong.  I presume if you made that false claim when I wasn't here, you would have noticed I wasn't here.

3.That's the standard comment you make, hopeless retard, when you can't answer a question:  "if you don't already know, I can't help you" or some such nonsense.

I'm just listening to old radio shows right now, so, if you really do want to play this game, I could go back over all your (recent) posts where you made such a comment and ask you to actually answer the questions you were asked.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 10, 2018, 12:14:05 AM
DACA is an unconstitutional program which was created as a policy by writing a letter. The current president has the authority to rescind that policy.

Not according to the judge.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 10, 2018, 12:07:44 AM
Liar

Stop picking your nose, Putin.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 10, 2018, 12:05:56 AM
More liberal judges. How does Napolitano even have standing in the DACA issue?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/09/federal-court-orders-trump-administration-to-reinstate-daca/

And here you were hoping that Trump was already a full dictator.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 09, 2018, 11:58:28 PM

Way to avoid the question.  Like I said, most simply refuse to respond, come back with something off topic.

The question was:  how did tax revenue to the federal government double during the Reagan years when we had all those tax cuts?  Why should we listen to someone now who sounds exactly like the people who didn't have an answer then, and still can't explain it 30 years later?

You're such a hopeless retard you probably don't realize you routinely engage in what you (falsely) accuse me of doing here. Check the number of posts where you reply when pressed for details with something like "if you aren't aware of this already, I can't help you."

That you clearly believe that one rule applies to you but another rule applies to everybody else is one of the many reasons why you're worthless.

And again, if anybody with an I.Q above zero here asks the question you asked (so, basically anybody but you), I'll answer it, but I'm not interested in having any dealings with you, hopeless retard.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 11:32:51 PM
Listen you obtuse little freak... plot the numbers of the debt increase each year.

The increase for 2016 in the link you provided was $1,423 trillion. I said $500-600 per year was less than half what it was under Obama. Now STFU you obtuse lil dipshit.

Since you don’t know how to use excel, look at the graph included here. The slope is fairly constant in the debt during Obama’s tenure.

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/why-did-debt-jump-318-billion-one-day

I've posted the numbers.  You can post whatever B.S you want.  It doesn't change that your claim is false and that you're a liar.  The relevant numbers are the deficit figures, not the increases in the debt.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on January 09, 2018, 11:42:05 PM
This is the sort of thing people who didn't understand economics said about the Reagan tax cuts.  They never did explain how federal tax revenue doubled during Reagan's time in office, and they still don't know.  They're completely baffled by it.

After ignoring requests to explain that, they'll start in talking about how the deficit went up during those years.  But won't say a thing about the House and Senate being controlled by the Ds during those years, and holding Reagan's agenda hostage unless he went along with their reckless wastefull spending.  The Congressional Ds spent all of that increase every year, and borrowed still more on top of it.


Please, please tell us - oh autistic one - how it is that federal tax revenue doubled under Reagan, when every single person in the Western world who sounded like you said it wouldn't?  Just like you are saying with the Trump tax cuts now.  Really, I'd like to hear the explanation - I've been waiting to hear it for 30 years.

As I've said before, I'm not interested in having a discussion with you, hopeless retard.  However, just to point out as I've I've already shown you, the Republicans controlled the U.S Senate from 1981-1986.

Is it so hard for you to understand that you're worthless and I'm not interested in having anything to do with you?

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 11:19:09 PM
The whole discussion was based on the debt, not how much they cooked the numbers to come up with it. At the end of the day, is the rate of the debt increase higher today than it was under Obama. No. If it was the debt clock would be over $21 trillion already.

Quit picking your nose.

The debt increase figures aren't all that different from the deficit figures, so you're obviously just trying to duck and weave from admitting that you're initial post was a lie.

And here you're trying to change your original claim which is that it was 'half of what it was' under Obama, which is false for the period 2013-2016, or as I initially wrote, for the time not as impacted by the 'Great Recession.'

Just admit you're a liar and we can drop this. (I realize the inherent contradiction, but my hope is that once you tell the truth for the first time, you'll start regularly telling the truth.  Who knows, you may even move to the United States and become a Democrat.)

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 11:11:10 PM
Extraordinary accounting is not allowed. Look at the debt increase by FY. That is what we were discussing. Quit biting your nails. That’s disgusting.

The normally quoted figure is the deficit not the debt increase.  Being in Russia, you wouldn't understand U.S accounting.

Of course, the debt increase figures aren't all that different from the deficit figures, so you're obviously just trying to duck and weave from admitting that you're initial post was a lie.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 11:07:14 PM
You didn’t even use the numbers for the debt increase from the link you provided. Go fish.

I used the deficit numbers.  You should deal with the problems in your Russian homeland.

2009   $1,413      Stimulus Act
2010   $1,294           Obama tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles.
2011   $1,300      Debt crisis.
2012   $1,087      Fiscal cliff.
2013   $679                   Government shutdown.
2014   $485                   Debt ceiling.
2015   $438              Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $585              Defense = $767.3 b.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

I don't believe you, Putin, you're a liar.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 10:43:06 PM
Which is half what it was under Obama.

Go wash your hands.

Only during the height of the 'great recession.'  You're lying, Putin.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on January 09, 2018, 08:01:23 PM
Did she? I'm really not so sure about that, filling their vapid heads with garbage like The Secret And various other forms of spiritual materialism. What you're talking about started happening with Kennedy and was pretty much course corrected by the 80s. This isn't coming from racism. When I was a teenager my favorite guitarist was Hendrix. I practically worshipped that guy but it was almost irrelevant that he was black to me. He revolutionized guitar playing. That's all I cared about.

Coast to Coast has a lot of new age 'woo' guests on and obviously the vast majority of them aren't black.  I can't stand them either and that alone makes me hope Oprah Winfrey doesn't run for President.  She'd be better than Trump though.

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 09, 2018, 04:12:29 PM
One thing that you cannot argue about is that the national debt is currently growing at a slower rate than it did under Obama.

'Current' being the key word there because it doesn't take into account the latest Republican tax cut scheme which will add around another $150 billion a year to the deficit.  The deficit for 2017 is already going to be in the $400-450 billion range, so baring major spending cuts (i.e the euphemism 'entitlement reform') the U.S is looking at deficits in the $500-600 billion range for as far as the eye can see.  And, that's with the economy operating at near full employment.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on January 09, 2018, 11:04:53 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvb3stb89R0&t=32s

Well, if the shirtless moron says so...

Quote from: Gd5150 on January 08, 2018, 11:08:43 PM
Hillary Clinton Tracker:

Days in office: 0

Stock Market: record number of record closes
Unemployment: record lows
Economic growth: explosive 3% heading to 4%
Tax Cuts: massive across the board generating more jobs and more beautiful growth.
Lemmings: still brainless
Mueller investigation: still jack squat

America celebrates becoming great again!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

You certainly are a lemming.

Trump campaign promise tracker:

Days In Office: 353
Not started: 103 of 174
In progress: 18 of 174
Achieved: 13 of 174
Broken: 37 of 174
Compromised: 3 of 174

https://trumptracker.github.io/

Quote from: Gd5150 on January 08, 2018, 09:47:06 PM
What? I spend $150mo for “Bellgab Insider” membership.

Even Coast Insider is only $15 a month.  And worth every penny!

Quote from: Swishypants on January 08, 2018, 09:43:23 PM
TWO DOLLARS!

And worth every penny!