gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : Pitchfork Media Gives a 10.0 Rating to 'Bloody Revolution'

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:02:41 +0000

And the French Revolution wasn't bloody at all. Neither was the Russian Revolution.

Big Hollywood : The Truth HBO's 'Game Change' Hides: Palin Carried McCain Until He Changed the Game

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:25:42 +0000

I think you're being too harsh. It is the job of a VP candidate to talk up the person at the top of the ticket and, traditionally, be the attack dog. Bob Dole got the unfounded reputation of being a grump when he was Gerald Ford's running mate.

Big Hollywood : HBO Says Palin Flick No Hit Job, But Liberal Reviewers Paint Different Picture

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:57:26 +0000

Hank, You're correct in your analysis but you left out one point and probably the most important one: She was attacked because she was a very credible threat to Obama and all his media sycophants and their wet dream. I remember her first speech and thought two things: "This could turn the entire race around" and "The left will do anything to destroy this woman". Sure enough, they started going after her on inexperience while completely ignoring the inexperience of the guy at the top of the other ticket. It was a perfect example of what Orwell called doublethink. As much as I love Sarah (in a platonic way, of course) I feel that that the left succeeded in poisoning the well on her with the people who accept what their told and and too lazy to find out for themselves. I think that was the main reason she decided to sit this one out. And again, anybody who voted for Barack Obama should not go around calling anyone else stupid.

Big Hollywood : BREAKING: HBO Releases Absurd, Defensive 'Game Change' Statement: Hit

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:53:18 +0000

I wish I had HBO just so I could cancel my subscription. Off topic: I signed up for Netflix to watch "Lilyhammer" based on the review that John Nolte gave last week. I've watched four episodes and it's a great show.

Big Government : Surprise! Higher Tax Rates Yield Lower Revenue

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:53:11 +0000

All I did was explain the math behind your numbers. But, I guess math is hard and you want to change the subject. Fine. And now we we have a government spending bubble. And interest rates are at rock bottom. And no recovery in sight. In fact, we are doing the exact same things that Japan did in the 1990's and look at where they are. Increased government spending? Check. Zero interest rates? Check. Tax increases? Check. Stimulus plans? Check. Tax revenues this year are only 54% of spending. Their national debt is more than 225% of GDP (we're at 101%) and going up. The only thing that is saving Japan is that 95% of that debt is owned by Japanese. Once they have to go overseas for more money, they are doomed. Why am I wasting time explaining this to you?

Big Government : Surprise! Higher Tax Rates Yield Lower Revenue

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:14:16 +0000

You obviously don't understand what Arthur Laffer was descibing. So, I'll explain it to you. What he was describing was the general relationship between tax revenues and tax rates. The simple case is a tax rate of 0%. What are the revenues at that rate? Obviously it's zero. What about a tax rate of 100%? The revenue again would be zero. Why? Because if everything someone made was taken as taxes, there wouldn't be any point in working or running a business. So people would stop working and businesses would shut down. Alternatively, the entire economy would go underground and all transactions would be "off the books". This happens a lot now even with current rates. The incentives to do this are worth the risks of being caught. So, what Laffer is saying is that somewhere between 0% and 100% is the "sweet spot" rate where you get the maximum amount of revenue. Historically, that has been around 18% of GDP no matter what rates were at the time. This makes sense if you want to use tax policy for the purpose of raising revenue. If you want to use tax policy for satisfying your own envy or for social engineering, that's a different story.

Big Government : Surprise! Higher Tax Rates Yield Lower Revenue

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:28:01 +0000

The Conservative Party is anything but conservative and hasn't been since they ousted Margaret Thatcher. The UK doesn't even have control of its own laws anymore. About 70% of the laws in the UK are mandated from the EU. The unofficial motto of the Conservatives is: "We can run the welfare state better than Labour can."

Big Government : Surprise! Higher Tax Rates Yield Lower Revenue

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:16:56 +0000

I guess you slept during math class. When you express something as a percent, you are describing a ratio. That is, the size of x divided by the size of y. So when the size of x gets bigger, the ratio gets bigger too. When y gets bigger, the ratio gets smaller. Got that so far? If not, keep re-reading until you understand it. Now here's the fun part: If x gets bigger but y gets bigger even more, the ratio gets smaller. So what you just described was that the Bush tax cuts actually increased the size the economy faster than tax revenues were able to keep up. So, thank you for providing proof that the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy.

Big Government : Santorum: Satan Bad, Vote For Me

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:33:43 +0000

I'm going to get dumped on for this, but I'm not going to apologize for telling the truth. I'm thinking in terms of tactics and, in case anyone here has forgotten, the goal of making sure Obama and his ilk are gone from power. This election will be won or lost in the "mushy middle", those so-called independents and moderates, aka the people who haven't decided what they believe yet. The excerpt of this speech couldn't be any better for Obama if the Obama people wrote it for Santorum. I've said before, that IMO, the Obama people think Santorum is the easiest to beat. With stuff like this, it will be simplicity itself to portray Santorum as a religious kook to the mushy middle. Obama then wins and we all lose. Any of the Republicans is better than Obama. Even Ron Paul. Anybody who says they won't support candidate (pick any one) is by default conceding the election to Obama.

Big Government : Government Loses Money Minting Money

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:54:57 +0000

Pre-1982 pennies are 95% copper, Just saying.

Big Government : Rasmussen: Santorum Opens Big Double-Digit Lead in Ohio

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:38:32 +0000

Absolutely correct. This nation is at the abyss and the defeat of Obama is the highest priority. This arguing about who is more conservative is pointless right now. We can argue that after Obama and his ilk are gone.

Big Government : Rasmussen: Santorum Opens Big Double-Digit Lead in Ohio

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:13:01 +0000

I posted this over in "Senator Roy Blunt Vows to Fight Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate". In part: "Another thought that really scares me is "Why this? Why now?". The past has shown that everything this administration does has some connection to reelecting Barack Obama. Everything. My feeling is that the Obama people think that, of the three candidates, Santorum would be the easiest to beat. So this whole charade is to purposely outrage the Catholics so that they will turn out for Santorum (who is Catholic) and hopefully knock out Romney and Gingrich. Afterwards, they will back off and make peace with the bishops and the demonization of Santorum will begin. I actually hope I'm wrong about this."

Big Government : Senator Roy Blunt Vows to Fight Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:00:15 +0000

We're getting played again. Look at what is being argued here. The argument is about whether religious groups should pay for mandatory coverage for contraception. Of course, the courts would throw this out eventually anyway. But what has already been conceded is that mandatory coverage of contraception for everyone else. This is how the left has been able to roll back freedom for decades. By moving the lines slowly backwards. Another thought that really scares me is "Why this? Why now?". The past has shown that everything this administration does has some connection to reelecting Barack Obama. Everything. My feeling is that the Obama people think that, of the three candidates, Santorum would be the easiest to beat. So this whole charade is to purposely outrage the Catholics so that they will turn out for Santorum (who is Catholic) and hopefully knock out Romney and Gingrich. Afterwards, they will back off and make peace with the bishops and the demonization of Santorum will begin. I actually hope I'm wrong about this.

Big Journalism : Blaming Grassroots for the Failure of Inevitability

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:09:02 +0000

Every one of the nominees has some kind of issues. Romney has his "all things for all people" reputation. Gingrich is the smartest man in the room but isn't satisfied unless everybody acknowledges it. Santorum would be thoroughly demonized as a religious fanatic to the point he's unelectable. Paul has the lunatic fringe vote locked up but his support is a mile deep and an inch wide. But no matter who's the nominee, you have to ask yourself the question: "Would I rather have 10% of what I want (pick your least favorite contender) or 100% of what I don't want (Barack Obama)?

Big Government : Mortgage 'Settlement' Is a Bailout for California

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:49:13 +0000

Depends what you mean by "wrongly". Did those people owe the money? In almost all cases, yes. Did they fall behind on their payments? In almost all cases, yes. People are trying to create a narrative that people got into this mess through no fault of their own. That people were powerless to resist the lure of easy credit and ever rising real estate prices. That you could use the equity in your home as easy as an ATM machine. The truth is that most of these people knew exactly what they were doing and willfully ignored the downside dangers. Now that the downside has happened, they want to blame it all on someone else. There's plenty of that to go around, but you pick out a house first before you go anywhere near a bank.

Big Government : House GOP Moves to Add 'Pelosi Provision' to Bill Banning Insider Trading

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:02:12 +0000

The Pelosi IPO is actually worse than insider trading. It stinks of a bribe. "But Pelosi aides said that her husband, Paul, did not gain any special access to the IPO. He purchased them through his existing broker at Wells Fargo, one of the 41 banks that were underwriters in the $17.9 billion IPO, the largest in U.S. history." No ordinary investor can just call up a broker and get the IPO price in an underwriting like this. No. Way. In. Hell. Typically, when a new issue goes public, all the shares have already been subscribed, mostly to large clients of the underwriters with a few set aside to bribe people with. Aristocracy of Pull, indeed. Ordinary investors get what's left over after the shares hit the secondary market. I think what annoys me most about Nancy Pelosi is that her excuses insult my intelligence. I'm going to call up my broker now and get in on the Facebook IPO.

Big Government : Obama Administration Gave Electric Car Battery Maker $118 Million Grant, Company Now Bankrupt

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:21:27 +0000

Maybe because the original article says no such thing and you're just making s__t up. BTW, I see the Guy Fawkes mask and I bet you have no idea who Guy Fawkes was and why he tried to blow up the English Parliament.

Big Journalism : Ebenezer Obama: What Politico's Ken Vogel Doesn't Tell You About Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:56:22 +0000

One thing that the media won't let you in on: Taxes are cumulative. Here's a simple and simplistic example: Let's say a company sells something for $1000 which cost them $900 to make and sell. They made a profit of $100. If the company is a corporation, they are subject to a max 35% tax rate so $35 goes to corporate taxes leaving $65. Let's say that get paid out to the shareholders (i.e. owners) as a dividend. The shareholders are then subject to a max 15% tax on that dividend ($9.75 if you do the math). So the cumulative taxes on that $100 profit is actually 44.75%. So as an investor, Romney's tax rate is much higher than it would appear.

Big Journalism : One Occupier's Sad Story Of Foreclosure Is A Bit Less Sad Than Reported By The Press

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:23:54 +0000

Thanks Mr. Stranahan. There is a thing that economists call The Greater Fool Theory. It states that you can always find someone stupider than you who will buy something from you for more than what you paid. This is usually in play in any kind of asset bubble. Think house flippers. There is something I call The Wrong End of the Greater Fool Theory: When there isn't anyone stupider than you. That's when asset bubbles pop.

Big Journalism : One Occupier's Sad Story Of Foreclosure Is A Bit Less Sad Than Reported By The Press

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:16:24 +0000

You're not wrong if Nevada is a non-recourse state. In a non-recourse state, the mortgage is secured solely by the value of the house. In a foreclosure sale, if the bank can't get back what they loaned out, too bad. In a recourse state, like New York, the bank can still come after you for any shortfall from the foreclosure sale.