I don't know how such a blatant ad hominem argument can be modded informative.

Anyone who isn't aware that the Democratic Party includes a large contingent of those who openly profess to being socialists/communists, along with those who hold ideological views that are blatantly Marxist in nature, would have to be dangerously ignorant/, uninformed, and/or experiencing a psychotic break with reality.

Wow, talk about a break with reality...

There is a *very small* contingent of Democrats who profess to being a socialist or a communist. Most who had done so in the past have left the Democratic Party because the party is very much in the capitalist camp.

If you believe a large contingent holds views that are Marxist in nature, you need to either read up on Marx or actually talk to Democrats... instead of listening to the demagogues who profit from your buy-in to their claptrap on right-wing radio.

I recall a while back how Obama was using a talking point about how there was a relatively small building in Grand Cayman which housed some thousands of corporations who didn't really do business there. He blamed it on tax avoidance. Trouble is, the same kind of building exists in Deleware, who has an income tax.

DE does not assess income tax on income earned outside of DE. I'm not sure how DE's income tax is relevant here.

Wlell, Deleware has very lax laws and the "deregulation" that many socialists decry, which make it much easier to run a business out of there.

What do you mean, "lax laws"? What laws are lax that would encourage corporations to incorporate there? The fact that shareholders can issue binding statements in writing rather than being required to have meetings? I fail to see how "socialists decry" that kind of activity.

The reasons to incorporate in DE are simple... it's far cheaper outright (low fees and extremely low franchise tax) and laws kind to corporations in re: legal activity (e.g., certain classes of civil cases are adjudicated by judge's written statement, not trial by jury).

Another way the DE:Cayman similarity breaks down is that income in other states is still taxable in other states. A DE corporation HQ'd in NY with an operations nexus in MA still pays NY corporation taxes and MA personal property taxes. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about, or what similarities you're trying to draw.

You can establish a blind trust with restrictions on the activity of the trust, such as investing in specific sectors, or in specific regions. It's the specific transactions that are "blind".

you most certainly can tell the trustee not to use off-shore tax havens if you so choose.

That money is most often re-invested in said company

If they do that, they are idiots. Why would you reinvest after-tax distributed income when you could use the money in the company prior to distribution of profits to shareholders?

Something about your claim doesn't add up.

I worked for an S-Corp at one time; shareholder distributions were made AFTER all expenditures, including capital expenditures. If a shareholder wanted to invest more money in the company, usually it was done via loan. This loan was a personal investment like any other... and as such, must be done with after-tax income unless part of a qualified IRA or 401(k) plan.

It's not global warming that is killing coral reefs. It is ocean acidification [wikipedia.org].

Acidification is a threat to the long-term viability of coral reefs.

However, the reefs that are dying off now are doing so not because of acidification, but by-and-large because of high water temperatures.

Here, "ocean/shore localities suitable for farming" don't become less suited for salmon farming just because there is a farm there for any period of time.

Obviously, you don't have any knowledge of salmon farming or you would know that salmon farming *does* make the real estate used for it unusable after a period of time with current methods. Decades for recovery.

You're talking out your ass again. I'm done with this discussion.

Farmed != harvested. It's pretty deceptive to equate the two.

Not when I address that issue in my very next sentence.

If one were being fair and truthful, one wouldn't say that salmon farming isn't sustainable, but that it isn't sustainable at its current volume under current circumstances (an assertion which I'm not convinced is true BTW).

Except that is what I said: "Salmon, on the other hand, is not really sustainable using current practices." Why are you insinuating I am not being fair or truthful?

I fail to see any item of discussion in your post I did not address in my original response, other than your accusation of me being unfair or lying (which is clearly unfounded).

If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, I'd be happy to continue it. Otherwise, bugger off.

They claim salmon and carp are the most farmed fish in the world.

Just because they're the most farmed fish in the world doesn't mean they are sustainable. Passenger pigeons, at one point, were the most-harvested bird species in the US... turns out that wasn't sustainable. One difference between passenger pigeons and salmon is what the diminishing resource is... in the case of the pigeons, it was the pigeons themselves that were hunted to extinction. For salmon, the resource is ocean/shore localities suitable for farming.

Carp, I'd guess, is sustainable, since it can be farmed much like tilapia.

Salmon, on the other hand, is not really sustainable using current practices, though there is promise for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) and other methods to improve sustainability.

Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.

Somehow you think the situation today is any different?

You can't explain that away by anything other than we're experiencing massive spending increases that have no relation to anything but that the feds just want to spend more money.

To be a little more complete, the "partners" of the feds who own private concerns doing contract business with the US government want the feds to spend more money. Government payrolls? Way down since 2000. Direct government assistance? Doesn't even come close to making up that increase.

The federal government wastes its money lining the pockets and coffers of private businesses. I believe that if it's worth it for government to spend money on something, then the government should operate it. Schools (local government), prisons, military, roads, etc. The only exception should be commodity procurement necessary for operations where there is a competitive marketplace.

I find it ludicrous that there are companies that contract with the US government whose executive compensation is in the tens or hundreds of millions per year. Civil servants should be doing their jobs.

When you pay back investors of government bonds here is what happens. They get a TON of extra capital. Where does it go? Back to the stock market and to the private sector in lines of credit for small business to hire and expand.

It goes into inflation. Buying back bonds doesn't increase GDP, it simply increases the cash in circulation relative to GDP.

Furthermore, with interest rates currently so low, and bond buyback serving to reduce yields, you end up with a situation where banks and other entities are even less likely to invest money in the economy at large.

You have it backwards. Issuing government bonds is a counter to inflation; buying them back can cause inflation.

Elections do, indeed, have consequences... the American people gave a large majority in the House of Representatives (where all taxes and spending are constitutionally-required to originate) to the Republicans

And yet Democrats received a majority of the votes for House members... not just a plurality, a majority... yet the Republicans used their control of Statehouses to gerrymander the shit out of Congressional districts.

The House Republicans have no mandate. The people of the US voted against them. Only chicanery has let them keep a majority in the House.

The American People did not choose to have Republicans control the House. It is fact that a majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the House this election cycle.

Your point does not stand.

Atheists don't believe in evil.

Bullshit. I'm an atheist, and I believe in evil. It may not be your version of "Evil" (so I agree with you on the subjective part). But then again, all morality is subjective.

But I digress.

And how does voting for evil fix anything?

Voting for the lesser of two evils, as he said, does make a difference (inasmuch as any single vote can make a difference). Faced with a choice between two undesirable outcomes, you opt for the less undesirable one. This is basic rationality, here... not sure how you could be confused by it.

You know that smelly unkempt guy who shows up at your LAN party and has just about every cheat installed and who shouts PWN! every time his aimbot blows your guy's head off? Yeah...the guy you want to knife in the Kidneys.

These guys will run for office one day as a Democrat.

Horseshit. We all know that guy is a libertarian.