Yep, right back to memes like the other nonverbal reetards greenskeeper and It Hurts. Good talk, Sam.

40 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said:

Sorry - I forgot the NJ voter fraud was a "software glitch." Nothing to see here.

to be clear, despite "thousands" inadvertently being registered, less than 400 ever cast ballots. in a state with over 6,600,000 registered voters, with over 4,300,000 casting ballots in the 2024 election. with Kamala, a historically weak Democratic candidate, still winning by over 250,000 votes.

this narrative that Democrats are conspiring to get illegals to vote to the tune of .. 400 votes .. is preposterously stupid. even if the 6,000 or whatever that were registered voted you're looking at 0.1%.

On 7/23/2026 at 1:33 PM, Procus said:

Tell me why you don't understand why a normal person couldn't give a rats ass what a small closed group of deranged leftists do or think.

Why did you stop posting about the gas prices in Florida falling?

30 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

to be clear, despite "thousands" inadvertently being registered, less than 400 ever cast ballots. in a state with over 6,600,000 registered voters, with over 4,300,000 casting ballots in the 2024 election. with Kamala, a historically weak Democratic candidate, still winning by over 250,000 votes.

this narrative that Democrats are conspiring to get illegals to vote to the tune of .. 400 votes .. is preposterously stupid. even if the 6,000 or whatever that were registered voted you're looking at 0.1%.

It is useless to post math, it’s something they clearly don’t understand

2 minutes ago, Lambo said:

It is useless to post math, it’s something they clearly don’t understand

They don't even understand words, let alone math. There's a reason why they only communicate with pictures.

9 hours ago, vikas83 said:

This lie about the top 1% and top 10% not paying income taxes will never die despite being laughably false. We have the most progressive income tax system in the developed world based on income taxes paid primarily because half the country pays nothing. The top 10% pay roughly 72% of all income taxes; the bottom 50% pay 3%.

You work. Most of the richest people either don’t work or take their salary in stock. The wealth accrued by the richest in this country does not come from income. You know that.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

to be clear, despite "thousands" inadvertently being registered, less than 400 ever cast ballots. in a state with over 6,600,000 registered voters, with over 4,300,000 casting ballots in the 2024 election. with Kamala, a historically weak Democratic candidate, still winning by over 250,000 votes.

this narrative that Democrats are conspiring to get illegals to vote to the tune of .. 400 votes .. is preposterously stupid. even if the 6,000 or whatever that were registered voted you're looking at 0.1%.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yep, right back to memes like the other nonverbal reetards greenskeeper and It Hurts. Good talk, Sam.

If you are just reduced to repeatedly calling me the r-word, there is really no point in civil engagement is there. Enjoy your day we(e) man.

31 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said:

Is this a story?

Yes, 100%. We all have a vested interest in election integrity and a duty to hold states accountable for ensuring it.

Is there any reason to believe that Dems knowingly and maliciously conspired to allow ... 400 non-citizen votes in the interest of shifting elections?

No. That's absurd. You're talking about a rounding error.

We need to be smarter than this. Not every story like this is due to malicious intent or some conspiracy. In fact, most are not. And not every story requires maximum outrage and cynicism.

Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

2 hours ago, sameaglesfan said:

Sorry - I forgot the NJ voter fraud was a "software glitch." Nothing to see here.

Are you actually saying you believe there has been significant election impacting voter fraud?

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Are you actually saying you believe there has been significant election impacting voter fraud?

Are you actually expecting a coherent response? These people have navigated the mental gymnastics of the GOP owning every branch of government, yet also drowning in a tsunami of Dem voter fraud. You'll have a better conversation with the guy talking to himself on the bus.

1 minute ago, Lloyd said:

Are you actually expecting a coherent response? These people have navigated the mental gymnastics of the GOP owning every branch of government, yet also drowning in a tsunami of Dem voter fraud. You'll have a better conversation with the guy talking to himself on the bus.

Let's see what he says. I'm not going to just lump him in with others.

58 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said:

If you are just reduced to repeatedly calling me the r-word, there is really no point in civil engagement is there. Enjoy your day we(e) man.

Because the three of you are virtually indistinguishable. All you ever do is post dumb memes dude. Like not even breitbart or fox news articles, literally it's just memes. You don't know how to use words to make a coherent argument? Honestly, when was the last time you made a valid point in here about anything?

The simple answer is tax borrowings against assets as a constructive sale. But that would apply to everything - including HELOCs and 2nd mortgages.

Close the carried interest loophole and treat all performance fees as ordinary income.

But liberals don’t want a solution. They want populist anger.

Just now, vikas83 said:

The simple answer is tax borrowings against assets as a constructive sale. But that would apply to everything - including HELOCs and 2nd mortgages.

Close the carried interest loophole and treat all performance fees as ordinary income.

But liberals don’t want a solution. They want populist anger.

Trump is closing that in 2016 when he wins the election!

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

You work. Most of the richest people either don’t work or take their salary in stock. The wealth accrued by the richest in this country does not come from income. You know that.

And we don’t tax unrealized gains because that would be economic suicide. Tax borrowings against assets as constructive sales, but for everyone (so HELOCs and 2nd mortgages too). It’s a simple fix that no one proposes because demonizing wealth drives votes.

No one wants to fix the problem - they just want to get people angry.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The simple answer is tax borrowings against assets as a constructive sale. But that would apply to everything - including HELOCs and 2nd mortgages.

Close the carried interest loophole and treat all performance fees as ordinary income.

But liberals don’t want a solution. They want populist anger.

If you adjust the HELOC and second mortgage tax borrowings against the original cost basis - meaning the taxable portion is whatever is borrowed above the original purchase price - then this makes sense.

If I buy a home for $500k, finance $250k, then a couple years later for whatever reason want to borrow $100k against it, that borrowing against equity I already paid for.

But if that $500k home is worth $1m 10 years later and I end up borrowing past the $500k purchase price, whatever above that $500k I could see being taxable.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you adjust the HELOC and second mortgage tax borrowings against the original cost basis - meaning the taxable portion is whatever is borrowed above the original purchase price - then this makes sense.

If I buy a home for $500k, finance $250k, then a couple years later for whatever reason want to borrow $100k against it, that borrowing against equity I already paid for.

But if that $500k home is worth $1m 10 years later and I end up borrowing past the $500k purchase price, whatever above that $500k I could see being taxable.

Yeah you could probably put something together like that and maybe carve out an exception for a 2nd mortgage on the primary residence.

An evolved model would also factor in inflation. But that would require that the govt not have that lever to pull when they need to monetize the debt from overspending.

22 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you adjust the HELOC and second mortgage tax borrowings against the original cost basis - meaning the taxable portion is whatever is borrowed above the original purchase price - then this makes sense.

If I buy a home for $500k, finance $250k, then a couple years later for whatever reason want to borrow $100k against it, that borrowing against equity I already paid for.

But if that $500k home is worth $1m 10 years later and I end up borrowing past the $500k purchase price, whatever above that $500k I could see being taxable.

Well what about taking out a second mortgage and then paying it off. Should the "purchase price" reset to the new higher value?

32 minutes ago, Bill said:

Well what about taking out a second mortgage and then paying it off. Should the "purchase price" reset to the new higher value?

If you borrow against an employee stock option purchase that doubled in value, should that reset the cost basis?

I don't think it would, because a second mortgage isn't a new purchase. The cost basis stays the same.

This all gets messy because inflation is an implicit baked in reality that skews things.

The New York Times reported:

The Democratic Party is so short on cash that leaders at its headquarters have undertaken a new gambit to mask the severity of the problems: asking vendors not to send bills until after the midterm elections.

The bookkeeping maneuver, which was described by three people briefed on it, is the latest sign of financial duress for the Democratic National Committee and its embattled leader as money troubles threaten to undercut Democratic momentum with 100 days until the midterms.

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you borrow against an employee stock option purchase that doubled in value, should that reset the cost basis?

I don't think it would, because a second mortgage isn't a new purchase. The cost basis stays the same.

This all gets messy because inflation is an implicit baked in reality that skews things.

Yeah, that's true.

I think the issue got this way because, and @vikas83 feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but over the last several decades C-Suite pay transitioned from salary to stock because in the first place people were bishing that they had too high a salary, so that's largely why we're having this discussion in the first place.

41 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yeah, that's true.

I think the issue got this way because, and @vikas83 feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but over the last several decades C-Suite pay transitioned from salary to stock because in the first place people were bishing that they had too high a salary, so that's largely why we're having this discussion in the first place.

I think it's more that compensation shifted towards equity in the 80s and 90s, and in bull markets that equity is calculated as compensation for anyone trying to make a point about CEO salaries.

Most CEOs have "low" salary numbers relative to their total compensation when factoring in equity.

This also incentivizes CEOs to maximize stock returns. Whether that's broadly a good thing long term for many firms is subject to debate.

Subjectively I think it makes too many executives push towards decisions that maximize profits quarter to quarter, pushing costs of process and technical debt into a future where it may be someone else's problem.

Long term, some decisions made to paint a good picture for earnings calls can ultimately cost profitability.

To be sure that's not to say all CEOs do this. But there is certainly pressure on them to do so at times, and you're relying on CEOs adhering to some basic ethical standards for it to not happen.