The consequences of hard Right-wing evil are destroying the world

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did that through the vulture chart.

The vulture chart proved I didn't get higher after tax income? How do you figure that?

I admitted that tax cuts are of no consequential benefit to me because of the increased prices on goods and services.

You failed to prove the claim that tax cuts cause prices to rise.

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get? You're back to where you were right? Your questions are nonsensical as always.

I never said tax cuts cause prices to go up. You did. I said, when prices of goods and services go up, the tax cut is of no consequence to me. Prices for goods and services may go up as a result of a tax cut because companies and businesses recognize the tax income increase. I wouldn't know. That's up to them.I was just stating a fact that happened this time with the so called higher income tax benefit. Personally I never got an added tax income benefit last year.

And by the way, this isn't what my thread is about. Why don't you start one?

Tax hikes cause prices to raise. I never saw where he said anything but that.

Tax cuts cause prices to decline. I never saw where said anything but that.

Based on a higher prices for goods and services and flat wages, tax cuts have zero meaning for consumers

You said this, correct? That is insane. Since the prices of goods and services are in no way connected to my payroll taxes, me having more of the money I rightfully earned, will always have "meaning" to me a consumer.

Why would you think otherwise?

It is very much connected, because wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart. What good is a tax cut when wages stay flat, and goods and services go up? The end result is that the consumer went no where. Simple math can figure that out for us. There is nothing insane about that logic. It's just simple logic and math.

wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart.

View attachment 238822

You need a chart without such a crappy scale to better prove your point.

It did a good job of drowning any kind of counter argument you thought you were going to have now didn't it?

No, a poorly scaled chart didn't impact my argument about tax cuts increasing my after tax income.

 

[BWK]

OMG ROTFLMFAO

Love it when idiots have no counter argument. Keep them coming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did that through the vulture chart.

The vulture chart proved I didn't get higher after tax income? How do you figure that?

I admitted that tax cuts are of no consequential benefit to me because of the increased prices on goods and services.

You failed to prove the claim that tax cuts cause prices to rise.

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get? You're back to where you were right? Your questions are nonsensical as always.

I never said tax cuts cause prices to go up. You did. I said, when prices of goods and services go up, the tax cut is of no consequence to me. Prices for goods and services may go up as a result of a tax cut because companies and businesses recognize the tax income increase. I wouldn't know. That's up to them.I was just stating a fact that happened this time with the so called higher income tax benefit. Personally I never got an added tax income benefit last year.

And by the way, this isn't what my thread is about. Why don't you start one?

And one last thing, stop tripping over your own lies. You suggested I said prices go up because of the tax cuts. Have you noticed in all your quoting, you never quoted me saying that? You make shit up there chief. You aren't that smart as to think folks don't notice how you quote one thing, but cherry pick others implying someone said it when they didn't. I've been on to that game of yours from the beginning. You can stop now. I'm too familiar with that game.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get?

Can you pay for increased prices easier with the old, higher tax rates or with the new, lower tax rates?

Start a thread. Your question is elementary logic by the way.

Your question is elementary logic by the way.

Yes, it pointed out the logical flaw in your complaint.

 

[BWK]

I already did that through the vulture chart.

The vulture chart proved I didn't get higher after tax income? How do you figure that?

I admitted that tax cuts are of no consequential benefit to me because of the increased prices on goods and services.

You failed to prove the claim that tax cuts cause prices to rise.

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get? You're back to where you were right? Your questions are nonsensical as always.

I never said tax cuts cause prices to go up. You did. I said, when prices of goods and services go up, the tax cut is of no consequence to me. Prices for goods and services may go up as a result of a tax cut because companies and businesses recognize the tax income increase. I wouldn't know. That's up to them.I was just stating a fact that happened this time with the so called higher income tax benefit. Personally I never got an added tax income benefit last year.

And by the way, this isn't what my thread is about. Why don't you start one?

Tax hikes cause prices to raise. I never saw where he said anything but that.

Tax cuts cause prices to decline. I never saw where said anything but that.

Based on a higher prices for goods and services and flat wages, tax cuts have zero meaning for consumers

You said this, correct? That is insane. Since the prices of goods and services are in no way connected to my payroll taxes, me having more of the money I rightfully earned, will always have "meaning" to me a consumer.

Why would you think otherwise?

It is very much connected, because wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart. What good is a tax cut when wages stay flat, and goods and services go up? The end result is that the consumer went no where. Simple math can figure that out for us. There is nothing insane about that logic. It's just simple logic and math.

wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart.

View attachment 238822

You need a chart without such a crappy scale to better prove your point.

It did a good job of drowning any kind of counter argument you thought you were going to have now didn't it?

No, a poorly scaled chart didn't impact my argument about tax cuts increasing my after tax income.

If it didn't, you sure have a non-existent way of showing it. Got a better chart proving the vulture chart is wrong? Lol! Of course not.

 

[BWK]

I already did that through the vulture chart.

The vulture chart proved I didn't get higher after tax income? How do you figure that?

I admitted that tax cuts are of no consequential benefit to me because of the increased prices on goods and services.

You failed to prove the claim that tax cuts cause prices to rise.

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get? You're back to where you were right? Your questions are nonsensical as always.

I never said tax cuts cause prices to go up. You did. I said, when prices of goods and services go up, the tax cut is of no consequence to me. Prices for goods and services may go up as a result of a tax cut because companies and businesses recognize the tax income increase. I wouldn't know. That's up to them.I was just stating a fact that happened this time with the so called higher income tax benefit. Personally I never got an added tax income benefit last year.

And by the way, this isn't what my thread is about. Why don't you start one?

And one last thing, stop tripping over your own lies. You suggested I said prices go up because of the tax cuts. Have you noticed in all your quoting, you never quoted me saying that? You make shit up there chief. You aren't that smart as to think folks don't notice how you quote one thing, but cherry pick others implying someone said it when they didn't. I've been on to that game of yours from the beginning. You can stop now. I'm too familiar with that game.

If prices go up, what higher after tax income did you get?

Can you pay for increased prices easier with the old, higher tax rates or with the new, lower tax rates?

Start a thread. Your question is elementary logic by the way.

Your question is elementary logic by the way.

Yes, it pointed out the logical flaw in your complaint.

Start a thread and show me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's because they don't. A tax increase causes prices to rise.

Tax hikes cause prices to raise. I never saw where he said anything but that.

Tax cuts cause prices to decline. I never saw where said anything but that.

Based on a higher prices for goods and services and flat wages, tax cuts have zero meaning for consumers

You said this, correct? That is insane. Since the prices of goods and services are in no way connected to my payroll taxes, me having more of the money I rightfully earned, will always have "meaning" to me a consumer.

Why would you think otherwise?

It is very much connected, because wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart. What good is a tax cut when wages stay flat, and goods and services go up? The end result is that the consumer went no where. Simple math can figure that out for us. There is nothing insane about that logic. It's just simple logic and math.

wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart.

View attachment 238822

You need a chart without such a crappy scale to better prove your point.

It did a good job of drowning any kind of counter argument you thought you were going to have now didn't it?

No, a poorly scaled chart didn't impact my argument about tax cuts increasing my after tax income.

If it didn't, you sure have a non-existent way of showing it. Got a better chart proving the vulture chart is wrong? Lol! Of course not.

Got a better chart proving the vulture chart is wrong?

You need a chart to see I have higher after-tax income when taxes are at 18% than when taxes are at 20%?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I hate to waste my time with uninformed idiots such as yourself, so I won't.

You refer to others as uninformed and yet you think you know so much more about Brazil's political situation than the people living there.

The Brazilian transplant pined for home and he had no doubts about the roots of his misery, which included worries about his family exposed to rampant crime. “My country was destroyed, economically, in safety and, most importantly, morally, during the last 16 years and I can only remember my green and yellow origins in a context that ends in 2002.” A Brazilian expatriate in Florida put the emphasis on corruption: “It is not a good feeling to be robbed and deceived like we were during [the Workers’ Party] years on office.”

Mr. Bolsonaro won because he promised to abandon the socialist dogma, including ideological excuses for violent crime. Social conservatives, who have suffered the left’s intolerance of their values, count among his supporters. But this rebellion runs far deeper. It goes to the heart of what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises called “human action.” Brazilians are demanding their basic rights to property and life.

Mr. Bolsonaro’s economy minister, Paulo Guedes, gave his first official address on Wednesday. He said “private-sector pirates, corrupt bureaucrats and creatures from the political swamp have conspired against the Brazilian people.” He pledged reforms to open the economy, privatize and deregulate, and rein in government spending.

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

 

[Andylusion]

LOL. Noam Chomsky. Yeah, Brazil was so much better under their former Marxist administration with their sky high crime rate and massive unemployment.

Noam Chomsky is an idiot. He's a brilliant linguist, and if you need advice on the study of languages, by all means read everything he has on the topic.

But as far as politics, Noam Chomsky is a complete and utter moron.

View attachment 238765 View attachment 238766

Noam Chomsky supported Hugo Chavez, and openly said he was a close friend.

Chavez destroyed his entire country, openly support militia groups operating in the country, destroyed freedom of speech, and resulted in a Venezuela with the most known oil reserves in the entire world... more than Saudi Arabia... into a third world nightmare, where people are eating pets to survive.

Chomsky..... is an idiot.

Do not base any of your views, on Chomsky. If there is anyone lacking credibility in talking about south American politics, it would be Chomsky.

I don't need Chomsky to understand South American politics. The U.S. taught me all I needed to know about that, which is why this thread is so important. CIA in South America | Geopolitical Monitor

All garbage. Do you want me to dissect each one of those boogus claims, or would you like to just admit now, that you are parroting what someone told you without researching it yourself?

Why are you asking? You don't need my permission. Lol! If it's all garbage and bogus, show us, Don't type shit about it. You make yourself out to be a liar when you don't.

You post lies, and then claim I'm a liar without providing real evidence other than your web site of lies.

Sorry. We were not involved in Chili. That's a fact. The CIA themselves said the coup was already in progress without their intervention.

Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, openly slaughtered his opponents, and exiled the rest. The attempted coup that never violently overthrew the government, but nevertheless caused Arbenz to resign, was made up primarily of people exiled by his regime. However, I am not surprised you support his rule.

Guyana. The Brits did this more than the US.

Ecuador, I agree. Should not have been involved in the early 60s.

Brazil while I do not support what involvement we had, it wasn't nearly as large as the left-wing makes it out. Maybe you missed it, but they already have revolts prior to US involvement. I highly doubt the US had much more impact, than encouraging what was already there.

Dominican Republic, I love this one. You got to love it when the basis for their accusations are "U.S. allowed". Notice we did not create the coup, nor support it, nor cause it..... no no... we allowed it. Implication, we are terrible if we intervene, and we are terrible if we don't. We should have stopped the coup. Then when we have wide spread civil war on our hands, with a half dozen factions militarizing for a mass slaughter, we send troops to quell the violence, and engage in open elections. Then we leave.

I suppose the left would have been more supportive if we had either killed all the right-wing groups, or simply allowed mass slaughter.

Uruguay, garbage. No evidence whatsoever.

Chile, garbage. CIA's own information indicated that a coup was already in progress before they got involved. Hence, they didn't get involved.

Bolivia, garbage. Bolivia's governmental system has been weak, long before the US helped train their armed forces. They changed government control, more than the average man changes his underwear.

Argentina, really? “We would like you to succeed,” said Kissinger. That's it? That's the big evil the US caused in Argentina? He said the magical words "we would like you to succeed" and just with powers beyond human comprehension, destroyed an entire country....? Is that your claim? Garbage.

Nicaragua, the Soviets were involved, and so were we. Funny how the left has no problem with the soviets spreading death and destruction, but screams when we counter them. I support our action there.

Honduras, garbage. We supported the Contras before and after the Iran action. No, they were not a colony. That's made up nonsense.

Grenada, the irony here is that after declaring independence from the UK, the Marxist-Leninists put Maurice Bishop in power. He was murdered, along with several others, including union leaders (which you leftist usually are fond of), by a military junta. The US was called and appealed to for help. We helped. Today in Grenada, they still celebrate the US involved in an official Thanksgiving day. I support this action.

El Salvador, I'm having a hard time validating anything claimed there. The only deaths I was able to find evidence of, involved a mission to determine if human rights abuses were taking place. So I don't have enough real evidence to say either way. Which of course doesn't stop the no-evidence-needed left-wingers on this forum.

Haiti, again no evidence. He said, she said.... is not evidence. Maybe it is true, but it wouldn't make sense, which doesn't mean it isn't true... but unlike a left-winger, being an intelligent right-winger, need evidence.

Panama, this guy was trash and needed removed. We were good and right to do so.

Venezuela, whatever we did there, has zero impact. Unless you want to claim the endless list of left-wing policies, was our goal.

The point however, is that you can not claim that the wide spread failure of left-wing ideology throughout all of South America, can all be attributed to a CIA funded radio station, is nonsense.

Whatever power the US used to influence various south American countries, had limited effect. If we really did have such a large influence, why does Haiti have such lousy property rights, a fundamental of Capitalism? Why is Venezuela experiencing nation wide blackouts, in a country with the most oil in the world, because they have placed their energy needs almost exclusively on renewable power? Why is Bolivia starting to nationalize industry? I thought we had them under our power?

See, you can say we did 'thus and so', and even if we assume you are right... it changes nothing. South American socialism is failing. Always has. Always will. My point remains the same.

The move to the right-wing, is because your system does not work.

I hate to waste my time with uninformed idiots such as yourself, so I won't. I'll just show you where you are wrong and prove you are an ignorant imbecile. You said we had nothing to do with the coupe in Chile, that you spelled wrong. Enjoy;
Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973

And everything else you argue about is garbage, lies, and no evidence. Lol! And yet, you have debunked none of it with your ignorant rants.

Did you read your own link?

"The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community."

Wow, opinions and descriptions have been widely known throughout human history, as overthrowing governments.

"Founded by the Pinochet regime in November 1975, Operation Condor was the codename for a formal Southern Cone collaboration that included transnational secret intelligence activities"

Operation Condor was an effort stemming from the countries in question. Not the US.

So the state department mentioned what was happening under Pinochet? So they recorded something we had nothing to do with.

"On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter. The Station Officer also told him his request would be forwarded to Washington. CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place. During the attack on the Presidential Palace and its immediate aftermath, the Station's activities were limited to providing intelligence and situation reports."
​

This is a well documented fact.

Since you can't really argue with anything else I said.... then I stand by my original claims.

 

[BWK]

It is very much connected, because wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart. What good is a tax cut when wages stay flat, and goods and services go up? The end result is that the consumer went no where. Simple math can figure that out for us. There is nothing insane about that logic. It's just simple logic and math.

wages have been flat for the last forty years, as evidenced by the Vulture chart.

View attachment 238822

You need a chart without such a crappy scale to better prove your point.

It did a good job of drowning any kind of counter argument you thought you were going to have now didn't it?

No, a poorly scaled chart didn't impact my argument about tax cuts increasing my after tax income.

If it didn't, you sure have a non-existent way of showing it. Got a better chart proving the vulture chart is wrong? Lol! Of course not.

Got a better chart proving the vulture chart is wrong?

You need a chart to see I have higher after-tax income when taxes are at 18% than when taxes are at 20%?

Create a thread.

 

[BWK]

I don't need Chomsky to understand South American politics. The U.S. taught me all I needed to know about that, which is why this thread is so important. CIA in South America | Geopolitical Monitor

All garbage. Do you want me to dissect each one of those boogus claims, or would you like to just admit now, that you are parroting what someone told you without researching it yourself?

Why are you asking? You don't need my permission. Lol! If it's all garbage and bogus, show us, Don't type shit about it. You make yourself out to be a liar when you don't.

You post lies, and then claim I'm a liar without providing real evidence other than your web site of lies.

Sorry. We were not involved in Chili. That's a fact. The CIA themselves said the coup was already in progress without their intervention.

Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, openly slaughtered his opponents, and exiled the rest. The attempted coup that never violently overthrew the government, but nevertheless caused Arbenz to resign, was made up primarily of people exiled by his regime. However, I am not surprised you support his rule.

Guyana. The Brits did this more than the US.

Ecuador, I agree. Should not have been involved in the early 60s.

Brazil while I do not support what involvement we had, it wasn't nearly as large as the left-wing makes it out. Maybe you missed it, but they already have revolts prior to US involvement. I highly doubt the US had much more impact, than encouraging what was already there.

Dominican Republic, I love this one. You got to love it when the basis for their accusations are "U.S. allowed". Notice we did not create the coup, nor support it, nor cause it..... no no... we allowed it. Implication, we are terrible if we intervene, and we are terrible if we don't. We should have stopped the coup. Then when we have wide spread civil war on our hands, with a half dozen factions militarizing for a mass slaughter, we send troops to quell the violence, and engage in open elections. Then we leave.

I suppose the left would have been more supportive if we had either killed all the right-wing groups, or simply allowed mass slaughter.

Uruguay, garbage. No evidence whatsoever.

Chile, garbage. CIA's own information indicated that a coup was already in progress before they got involved. Hence, they didn't get involved.

Bolivia, garbage. Bolivia's governmental system has been weak, long before the US helped train their armed forces. They changed government control, more than the average man changes his underwear.

Argentina, really? “We would like you to succeed,” said Kissinger. That's it? That's the big evil the US caused in Argentina? He said the magical words "we would like you to succeed" and just with powers beyond human comprehension, destroyed an entire country....? Is that your claim? Garbage.

Nicaragua, the Soviets were involved, and so were we. Funny how the left has no problem with the soviets spreading death and destruction, but screams when we counter them. I support our action there.

Honduras, garbage. We supported the Contras before and after the Iran action. No, they were not a colony. That's made up nonsense.

Grenada, the irony here is that after declaring independence from the UK, the Marxist-Leninists put Maurice Bishop in power. He was murdered, along with several others, including union leaders (which you leftist usually are fond of), by a military junta. The US was called and appealed to for help. We helped. Today in Grenada, they still celebrate the US involved in an official Thanksgiving day. I support this action.

El Salvador, I'm having a hard time validating anything claimed there. The only deaths I was able to find evidence of, involved a mission to determine if human rights abuses were taking place. So I don't have enough real evidence to say either way. Which of course doesn't stop the no-evidence-needed left-wingers on this forum.

Haiti, again no evidence. He said, she said.... is not evidence. Maybe it is true, but it wouldn't make sense, which doesn't mean it isn't true... but unlike a left-winger, being an intelligent right-winger, need evidence.

Panama, this guy was trash and needed removed. We were good and right to do so.

Venezuela, whatever we did there, has zero impact. Unless you want to claim the endless list of left-wing policies, was our goal.

The point however, is that you can not claim that the wide spread failure of left-wing ideology throughout all of South America, can all be attributed to a CIA funded radio station, is nonsense.

Whatever power the US used to influence various south American countries, had limited effect. If we really did have such a large influence, why does Haiti have such lousy property rights, a fundamental of Capitalism? Why is Venezuela experiencing nation wide blackouts, in a country with the most oil in the world, because they have placed their energy needs almost exclusively on renewable power? Why is Bolivia starting to nationalize industry? I thought we had them under our power?

See, you can say we did 'thus and so', and even if we assume you are right... it changes nothing. South American socialism is failing. Always has. Always will. My point remains the same.

The move to the right-wing, is because your system does not work.

I hate to waste my time with uninformed idiots such as yourself, so I won't. I'll just show you where you are wrong and prove you are an ignorant imbecile. You said we had nothing to do with the coupe in Chile, that you spelled wrong. Enjoy;
Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973

And everything else you argue about is garbage, lies, and no evidence. Lol! And yet, you have debunked none of it with your ignorant rants.

Did you read your own link?

"The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community."

Wow, opinions and descriptions have been widely known throughout human history, as overthrowing governments.

"Founded by the Pinochet regime in November 1975, Operation Condor was the codename for a formal Southern Cone collaboration that included transnational secret intelligence activities"

Operation Condor was an effort stemming from the countries in question. Not the US.

So the state department mentioned what was happening under Pinochet? So they recorded something we had nothing to do with.

"On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter. The Station Officer also told him his request would be forwarded to Washington. CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place. During the attack on the Presidential Palace and its immediate aftermath, the Station's activities were limited to providing intelligence and situation reports."
​

This is a well documented fact.

Since you can't really argue with anything else I said.... then I stand by my original claims.

Did I read my own link? Are you serious? The better question would be, did you? You have nothing to claim, because the words from the declassified document destroy your claims. Anyone who knows how to comprehend what they read, can see and read clearly, that we were involved in the planning and the mission too oust Allende. And Nixon and Kissinger had a front row seat.

• State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.
• FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.

CIA memoranda and reports on "Project FUBELT"--the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende's government

• 
  
  
  • National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.
  • State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.
  • FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.

We promoted a coup there. You know, the CIA? Ever heard of them? Can't you read? That's not something that was just ongoing. It was ongoing with our help. It's been documented you fool.

This is why I hate debating idiots who only have tunnel vision for what's convenient for them to see.

"To promote a military coup". That wasn't an after thought.

What I highlighted above, that's us. Okay? Learn reading comprehension.