Dem Post Mortem

[Harry Bosch]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

This is your response from post 1183 of this thread. Your displeasure with a tax deduction is quite clear. The thing to keep in mind is that taxes is an expense for a business, just like insurance, LOC loan interest, etc. Having lower taxes means you can use those extra dollars you've retained to invest in your employees (higher wages, etc), add capital equipment, add to your "rainy day fund", or whatever makes sense in your particular situation. Lower taxes is one way the government can "aid business to keep employess employed".

Here is what I said that you linked to:

Yes, a tax deduction for nothing other than having a business.

Please explain the difference between this post and my statement above.

Besides, for your own taxes, you are allowed a standard deduction. Isn't that essentially, in your words "giving you money for doing nothing but existing"?

I'm a real human with real human needs. Is this "Corporations are people, my friend."?

If I was a business I would be able to deduct my food and housing. And much more. I cannot. A comparison that cannot be evaluated.

Also, individual people are taxed on their income, whilst corporations are taxed on their profits (there are reasons for this, but are irrelevant to the analogy being discussed).

Well, individuals are taxed on their "taxable income"; not gross income. We are taxed on our gross income - deductions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Debs didn't do shit that warranted "sedition" charges.

That is your opinion.

You don't even have an opinion on it, you only know what you just read in Wikipedia.

Similarly it can be argued that what Trump did in the hush money case did not warrant felony charges, since Bragg engaged in some highly questionable legal maneuvering to upgrade a misdemeanor to a felony, and that he did it because he was targeting a political enemy.

That can be argued. It isn't relevant. The entire point was he was found guilty of that, when we know he was guilty of much worse stuff. Why you are hung up on this is beyond my imagination. You aren't out there flying a Trump banner, so why are you giving the cover when you know he guilty of some nefarious and unconstitutional acts?

Besides, Debs also spent 6 months in prison in 1894/95 for his activities during the Pullman Strike.

For his violent efforts that included blowing up two Pullman Cars in support of striking workers? Oh wait... no... it was for peaceful, non-violent protest.

"Wait"? Do you really forget?

Even if you think Feds could not have moved quicker, indicting in mid-2023 when there is no chance to not run into the presidential campaign was never going to go well. Especially if you have Alvin "Leeroy Jenkins" Bragg running headlong into his own prosecution, a prosecution that actually made Trump more popular because it smacked of using law as a political weapon.

The trial could have been completed in a few days, but the Trump lawyers wouldn't have wanted that. They manipulated the election timeline, not Smith. There was almost nothing to contest.

Yes, he did. Read a book. Debs fought tirelessly for the laborer.

He wanted to implement socialism. That would not have helped the laborers.

American Socialism is not Marxism. Particularly the platform of the Socialist party in 1900, of the 10 major planks, 6 or 7 are part of our way of life today, either in whole or adapted.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, individuals are taxed on their "taxable income"; not gross income. We are taxed on our gross income - deductions.

Taxable income is gross income - deductions. There is no difference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

It's easy to bite on these distractions and lost track of the overriding facts. In this case, it's an overriding fact that Jeff Bezos, who just donated a million$ to the pageant of Trump's coronation, DOESN'T WANT small businesses to thrive. This is about making billionaires richer and more powerful, getting rid of regulatory barriers to monopoly, predatory practices etc., and making the general business landscape non-competitive.
The handouts promised by Kami were a welcome distraction for the Trump/Putin campaign. The modern version of let them eat cake.

Disagree. Amazon likes small businesses. They buy up the good ones, converting corporate income into increased share value.

Bezos donated to the coronation because now you have to kiss royal ass.

 

[ZiprHead]

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

See, the really really important thing here isn't to approach the topic rationally, and with a degree of civility toward all parties, but rather to prove your dedication by making sure we spew enough hate to convince you of our political purity. Otherwise, we're apostates who need burning at the stake

So you think a parson who's done this:

He's a fucking traitor, he lead a fucking rebellion against the country, he's a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?

That being said, the statement taken out of context by you so you could attack a strawman was about Bomb's deletion of parts of the above quote. I guess if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil, no matter how much it makes you dishonorable. But you do you.

 

[Elixir]

that hatred is unjustfied?

ALL hatred is unjustified. Civility is more important than truth, freedom or the price of eggs.

if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil…

Hey - better than calling a two-faced person two-faced. That kind of thing just puts up barriers to communication. Pointing out their two-facedness is unlikely to change their behavior, anyhow. So be civil; that way they can claim high ground and never have to address the REASON they were being called two-faced. Whatever that reason might be, it pales in importance next to the priority of “civility”*.

* civility is now the refuge of scoundrels.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is the difference between equating and analogising?

I'm going to assume you're asking this for real, rather than being snippy.

When you equate two things, you are suggesting that they are functionally the same in some material fashion, that they can be exchanged within a context, and get the same outcome. Mathematically, this is pretty straightforward: 5 = 3+2 means that you can grab 3 of a thing in your left hand and 2 of the thing in your right hand, and you end up with the same number of things as if you'd grabbed 5 things in either your left hand or your right hand or your mouth. Figuratively, it can get a bit more complicated, but for example I might equate my spouse with a grabber tool in the context of getting a light bulb out of the cabinet over the stove. Functionally, either will result in the same outcome: lightbulbs in my hands. Similarly, I might equate a Vespa and a Ford F-150 in the context of getting to the nearest grocery store: functionally, they both result in me arriving at the store so I can get some apple juice.

When you analogize two things, you're NOT suggesting that they have any functional similarity at all. Analogies are used to illustrate an abstract concept or a relationship, and are always figurative, never literal. Outside of poetry and prose, the main use of analogies is to remove all of the complexities in the item under discussion in order to isolate the specific abstract characteristic or relationship that is the focus of discourse. One might analogize infants to saplings, to illustrate the high rate of growth and change that the baby is undergoing. That doesn't imply that there's any material similarity between saplings and babies - only to isolate the rapid growth as the focus of consideration from all of the many other characteristics that a baby has.

In this case, @thebeave used an analogy of tax write-offs for start-up costs but not for operations for a small business to the representation of republican opposition to abortion. The abstract concept being isolated is significant support for initiation (launch a new business, deliver a baby) but lack of support for continuation after initiation.

 

[ZiprHead]

What is the difference between equating and analogising?

I'm going to assume you're asking this for real, rather than being snippy.

When you equate two things, you are suggesting that they are functionally the same in some material fashion, that they can be exchanged within a context, and get the same outcome. Mathematically, this is pretty straightforward: 5 = 3+2 means that you can grab 3 of a thing in your left hand and 2 of the thing in your right hand, and you end up with the same number of things as if you'd grabbed 5 things in either your left hand or your right hand or your mouth. Figuratively, it can get a bit more complicated, but for example I might equate my spouse with a grabber tool in the context of getting a light bulb out of the cabinet over the stove. Functionally, either will result in the same outcome: lightbulbs in my hands. Similarly, I might equate a Vespa and a Ford F-150 in the context of getting to the nearest grocery store: functionally, they both result in me arriving at the store so I can get some apple juice.

When you analogize two things, you're NOT suggesting that they have any functional similarity at all. Analogies are used to illustrate an abstract concept or a relationship, and are always figurative, never literal. Outside of poetry and prose, the main use of analogies is to remove all of the complexities in the item under discussion in order to isolate the specific abstract characteristic or relationship that is the focus of discourse. One might analogize infants to saplings, to illustrate the high rate of growth and change that the baby is undergoing. That doesn't imply that there's any material similarity between saplings and babies - only to isolate the rapid growth as the focus of consideration from all of the many other characteristics that a baby has.

In this case, @thebeave used an analogy of tax write-offs for start-up costs but not for operations for a small business to the representation of republican opposition to abortion. The abstract concept being isolated is significant support for initiation (launch a new business, deliver a baby) but lack of support for continuation after initiation.

Analogize​

Part of Speech: Verb​

Sense 1: To make an analogy between two things​

Description: Analogize, as a verb, refers to the act of comparing or equating two different things to highlight similarities and draw inferences. It involves finding similarities or resemblances in order to explain or clarify a concept or idea.

They are synonyms.

 

[Emily Lake]

Once again... the lack of understanding about the difference between literal and figurative language is going to be the downfall of our species.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Once again... the lack of understanding about the difference between literal and figurative language is going to be the downfall of our species.

Would that be a literal or figurative downfall?

 

[Emily Lake]

Once again... the lack of understanding about the difference between literal and figurative language is going to be the downfall of our species.

Would that be a literal or figurative downfall?

I used to fall on the side of figurative, but I'm leaning more and more toward literal...

 

[Jarhyn]

that hatred is unjustfied?

ALL hatred is unjustified. Civility is more important than truth, freedom or the price of eggs.

if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil…

Hey - better than calling a two-faced person two-faced. That kind of thing just puts up barriers to communication. Pointing out their two-facedness is unlikely to change their behavior, anyhow. So be civil; that way they can claim high ground and never have to address the REASON they were being called two-faced. Whatever that reason might be, it pales in importance next to the priority of “civility”*.

* civility is now the refuge of scoundrels.

It always was.

Honestly, "civility l" is not a virtue.

It can facilitate or hinder various initiatives pursuant to peace.

Or rather we should be careful what we seem "civility" in the same way we must be careful what we deem "tolerance", for various reasons.

What they demand is not civility in the first place. They call it that *inappropriately* but this is not really what they want. They do not want civility, they want "civility". Civility would be merely putting them out kindly on their asses in the cold. What they want is deference to their own incivility. They want tacit acceptance. That is NOT civility but capitulation.

I'm done with this paradox of tolerance bullshit. The whole core of the definition of intolerance is the harmlessness of the behavior being rejected harmfully. So to with civility.

It is not the rejection of *civility* to reject *incivility*.

Stupid games should win stupid prizes.

 

[Elixir]

The whole core of the definition of intolerance is the harmlessness of the behavior being rejected harmfully. So to with civility.

That’s “too”, you semi-literate lizard brain!

(QFT)

 

[Jarhyn]

The whole core of the definition of intolerance is the harmlessness of the behavior being rejected harmfully. So to with civility.

That’s “too”, you semi-literate lizard brain!

(QFT)

Yeah, I've been getting sloppier on my phone-screen typing, which was never very good in the first place. Autocorrect doesn't make it any better, half the time. If you could get me on full 10 finger querty touch typing, you would get a much less error prone version.

That's far from the worst error even in that post...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I was a business I would be able to deduct my food and housing. And much more. I cannot. A comparison that cannot be evaluated.

Also, individual people are taxed on their income, whilst corporations are taxed on their profits (there are reasons for this, but are irrelevant to the analogy being discussed).

Well, individuals are taxed on their "taxable income"; not gross income. We are taxed on our gross income - deductions.

The standard deduction basically represents what you need to spend on food/housing/etc. The problem comes from being taxed on money we need to spend to make money.

 

[Elixir]

If I was a business I would be able to deduct my food and housing. And much more. I cannot. A comparison that cannot be evaluated.

Also, individual people are taxed on their income, whilst corporations are taxed on their profits (there are reasons for this, but are irrelevant to the analogy being discussed).

Well, individuals are taxed on their "taxable income"; not gross income. We are taxed on our gross income - deductions.

The standard deduction basically represents what you need to spend on food/housing/etc. The problem comes from being taxed on money we need to spend to make money.

Rich people turn all that into “business expenses ”. Even a medium sized business can float an extravagant lifestyle for a few people, VASTLY reducing their need for “taxable income”. The trick is to live large at Company expense, even if you are the Company.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why did she lose?

1) She’s a she, and an African American one at that.

Sadly, I do think that being a woman is the big factor. I think that it is ironically a larger barrier for women than men.

2) Uninspiring leadership

For some reason, Harris ran from economic issues. I suspect that the few years will demonstrate a recession in the US and a bear stock market. I think that higher interest rates will remain, slower growth, chaos in the labor market (kicking out immigrants).

3) Stuck to a script too much, not authentic

I do think that this was a major issue. Crazy that she didn't go on the Joe Rogan show. That was so stupid.

4) Biden stayed on too late - he never should have run to begin with

Well, if Biden had not run, Harris wouldn't have been nominated.

5). Bernie should have won 8 years ago. Stupid Dems nominate people who have no chance of winning.

This one drives me crazy. It's the old white man from NE is needed to save the people! He got less votes than HRC. Period. Put aside those false reports that the super delegates picked HRC. No, the dems did. HRC beat Sanders by 3.7 million votes! She beat him by majority vote and delegates. Biden destroyed Sanders in 2020. We don't need a white savior to save the democratic party.

Others?

Israel hurt.

 

[SLD]

Why did she lose?

1) She’s a she, and an African American one at that.

Sadly, I do think that being a woman is the big factor. I think that it is ironically a larger barrier for women than men.

2) Uninspiring leadership

For some reason, Harris ran from economic issues. I suspect that the few years will demonstrate a recession in the US and a bear stock market. I think that higher interest rates will remain, slower growth, chaos in the labor market (kicking out immigrants).

3) Stuck to a script too much, not authentic

I do think that this was a major issue. Crazy that she didn't go on the Joe Rogan show. That was so stupid.

4) Biden stayed on too late - he never should have run to begin with

Well, if Biden had not run, Harris wouldn't have been nominated.

5). Bernie should have won 8 years ago. Stupid Dems nominate people who have no chance of winning.

This one drives me crazy. It's the old white man from NE is needed to save the people! He got less votes than HRC. Period. Put aside those false reports that the super delegates picked HRC. No, the dems did. HRC beat Sanders by 3.7 million votes! She beat him by majority vote and delegates. Biden destroyed Sanders in 2020. We don't need a white savior to save the democratic party.

Others?

Israel hurt.

Thanks for responding to the OP specifically.

WRT 4 and 5, not sure if I agree. Typically, VP’s seem to get the nod if they run. They’re the obvious choice. I can’t think of a modern example of a VP running and losing the nomination. Nixon, Humphrey, Bush, Gore. Others? I say she would have likely won the nomination. The question is whether she would have won the election unlike Nixon, Humphrey and Gore. I suspect strongly she would have ran.

5. Nannh. How Clinton won is irrelevant. Sanders would have won, IMHO. That’s my point. But the Democratic Party leaders did put their thumbs on the scale to help her win. Everyone is afraid of an economic populist, but that’s what we need. And it’s not that he’s a white savior, he would have won. Trump is a white savior and that may very well be why he won.

 

[Elixir]

#8

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why did she lose?

1) She’s a she, and an African American one at that.

Sadly, I do think that being a woman is the big factor. I think that it is ironically a larger barrier for women than men.

2) Uninspiring leadership

For some reason, Harris ran from economic issues.

Because public perception trumps the truth. People didn't think the economy was okay. She'd come across as "out of touch" saying things were going well.

3) Stuck to a script too much, not authentic

I do think that this was a major issue. Crazy that she didn't go on the Joe Rogan show. That was so stupid.

Authenticity? Didn't stop Bill Clinton. As a note, Joe Rogan refused to go to her.... the sitting VP.

The inflation was going against the Democrats. The question was would Dobbs make enough of a difference (like it did in 2022)... the answer was "NO!"

4) Biden stayed on too late - he never should have run to begin with

Well, if Biden had not run, Harris wouldn't have been nominated.

True, but the Democrats were always running uphill.

5). Bernie should have won 8 years ago. Stupid Dems nominate people who have no chance of winning.

This one drives me crazy. It's the old white man from NE is needed to save the people!

I'd agree. Can you imagine the anti-communism advertising against Sanders?! It'd be brutal. The GOP would have painted him as Lenin. Sanders had no chance in heck of winning. And as you note, Clinton won over Sanders.