If you eliminate capital gains.

Keep repeating this lie and maybe you'll get some votes from **********s.

Meanwhile, show us rational people what the hell you're talking about. Apparently this is the "CRA meme", and only in ********** world would ending redlining be construed as forcing banks to make risky loans.

 

So you support the regulation of derivatives: is that your disingenuous point?

 

does not take place without government granted privilege.

 

Tax Capital Gains at 25%, that will solve nearly all our problems as long as we cut income taxes for everyone including the rich and cap income marginal rates at 25%. Make up the rest with cuts.

Problem solved. If States need more money that is their problem, let them tax their citizens to death.

 

Cutting taxes on billionaires solves what problem exactly? Is it your claim that billionaires are waiting around for a tax cut before they invest or buy new car?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAH!

Tea party logic! It's perfect.

 

Lender's have been and are heavily regulated. Ever see a home-loan agreement?

Protecting folks from the criminal element in any activity is one thing but, manipulating the lending market through the quasi-government entity Fannie Mae, by lowering qualification standards with the threat of discrimination for NOT lending to low income folks is not 'regulation' it is manipulation for political gain.

It's hard to say whether or not the Senator (or anyone else) could have foresaw this economic disaster as a consequence of these Fannie Mae programs however, one can make the conclusion that it happened under the Senator's watch. Sen. Frank said it was LACK of regulation and that is either a bold-faced lie or the utterance of a completely clueless government wonk.

Most markets DO police themselves quite well when left on their own. With just minimal regulation they function and prosper quite well and quite safely.

 

The notion of self-policimg markets is a utopanism thrusted upon us by an ideology that ultimately wants to impose coercion on the consumer and the worker. To ignore that the crisis reflects neo-liberalism (and therefore ultiimately free market economics) is a shocking revisionism

 

Are you kidding me? This is a fact. Are you denying this fact? If so, then your contention must be that EVERYONE is putting into the system AT LEAST the amount that they are taking out of the system. If so, then why are we in so much debt? Do YOU have any evidence supporting YOUR contention.

Many social programs are handouts, but lower tax rates are certainly not handouts.

I’m still not understanding you. My previous answer was in reference to the benefit of taxpayer-funded social programs. The simple answer is you can look at the tax money allotted towards those programs, to put a dollar amount of the benefits. What else are your referring to?

Yup. So what? The graph merely tries to illustrate “upwards and downwards” mobility of an unnamed sample population. It does not come close to denying the fact that it is very feasible for a lower class family to become middle class in a single generation (just like mine did). You can show a similar graph regarding the obese in America failing to normalize their BMI. However, such graphs provide no insight on the practicability of the obese losing weight.

So what if the rich are getting richer: That’s a GOOD thing, and it’s expected. It means that they live in a prosperous nation and they are able to build upon their investments with their wealth. Here’s some advice: If you live a country where the rich are getting POORER, get the hell out ASAP, because it means the country is failing. You expect those with greater wealth to continue to make more money at a great rate than those who started out with less (this is just pure logic and common sense). Do you have a problem with those with more money continuing to better their lives and the lives of their families?

The graph does NOT show this. It shows that the top 5% MAKE more money (DUH!!). The graph also shows misleadingly shows a seemingly disproportionate increase in the wages of the “top 5%” compared to the “poorest 20%” when wages are compared from 1973-2009. It is misleading because if you knew ANYTHING about simple math, you would EXPECT the TOP 5% of wages to increase more than BOTTOM 20% of wages. Again, if the reverse were true, there would be something seriously messed up in the system.

Don’t understand? Let me explain. Let’s compare someone from the “bottom 20%” to someone from the “top 5%” of wages. For example let’s compare a minimum wage janitor to a successful physician. The wages of the janitor are not expected to increase beyond the scope of the increase in minimum wage, since he has no marketable skills and his wages are entirely dependent on his employer. Hence we see a very small increase in the wages of the “bottom 20%.” Now let’s look at the physician. He has plenty of marketable skills in comparison to the minimum wage janitor. Also, the wages of a physician (in a private office) must increase AT LEAST in proportion to that of the rest of the population, or else his business would become less and less profitable.

Additionally, the wages of a private physician are not dependent upon an artificial minimum wage. Rather, they are dependent upon other factors, such as how many patients he/she sees and the type of procedures he/she performs. Such factors yield a much greater profit than merely relying on minimum wage. For these reasons, it is OBVIOUS why the “top 5%” will ALWAYS see a MUCH GREATER increase in salary gains than the “bottom 20%.” Again, your graphs shed no light on those MOVING their stations in life (e.g. starting as a janitor and becoming a stockbroker or other position with more marketable skills).

I just explained above why the “top 5%” are SUPPOSED TO earn more money than those in the “bottom 20%.”

Most people own stock (upper class, middle class, and even members of the lower class). Of course the rich own more stock: They have more money (DUH again!).

No! It would benefit EVERYONE that owns stock!

It would mean more money for EVERYONE that owns stock!

You have failed to explain why this is true? With your logic, I can say that the obese have more control of food than those who are not obese. Such reasoning is very silly to me. What does Bill Gates’ $50 billion have to do with me and my life? How does Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or someone making only $200,000 per year have any effect over my life or the choices that I make?

Why must it “make that money up somewhere else? Why can’t it do the sensible thing and cut entitlement programs?

Why will the poor earn less? I’m not understanding you here. OOOOHHHHH you mean that the poor will have less government handout??? GREAT!!!!!!

No. I don’t see how brainwashing the poor to think that they are entitled to my hard-earned money is “benefiting” them, nor do I think making the poor dependent on the government tit is beneficial either.

Sure it is. Someone working hard, trying to keep as much of their income as possible for their family and future generations to have a better life is the epitome of a capitalist. How do you define it?

Because you seemed to indicated that very clearly.

BUT THAT’S EXACTLY HOW YOUR LINE OF REASONING IS! The analogy to the obese was spot on. You continue to state the rich “control the money” for everyone else, but you fail to explain how. Just because someone has more money doesn’t mean that they CONTROL others’ ability to make money.

This analogy fails on so many levels. Unlike the man who is “laying claim” to the orchard of banana trees, the rich aren’t “laying claim” to all of the money (that would be impossible). On the contrary, people like me WANT others to work hard, realize their dreams, and become fiscally solvent and responsible. Also, there are only a finite amount of banana trees in your example, but, in real life, wealth can be created. Just look at Mark Zuckerberg. Before 2004, he was a mere college student, but by creating Facebook, he essentially created a new market that did not exist previously. Hence, he CREATED wealth (not just for himself, but for everyone that his company employs).

In a capitalist system, no ONE PERON can possibility control all of the wealth. On the contrary, in a system where the government can become increasing powerful through taxation (A.K.A. a socialist system, only the GOVERNMENT can feasibly control wealth of its citizens through confiscation/theft via taxation.

By looking at your extremely poor analogy, you have a great deal of learning to do regarding basic economic theory.

That’s doubtful. Those who have not suffered any major catastrophe beyond their control and STILL manage to end up poor have nobody to blame but themselves.

Again, how exactly do the rich “control” wealth, and how do they make the poor “bend to their will?”

 

Hmmmmm, what party are those crooks who introduced Gramm-Leech-Bliley? oh yea, all 3 Repubs.

And it was shot down at first, then the Dems put things in and by teh time it got to Clinton it had (*)(*)(*)(*) near 100% congressional approval, so a veto would have been overridden.

 

I don't know, what party do Rubin and Clinton belong to.

you needn't say more.


Sorry you can't see through a bipartisan effort to screw the people.

 

According to Reagan-appointed Fed Chair Greenspan tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Are you smarter than the Fed Chair who sat there for how many years? Social programs, whether classic social welfare or corporate welfare are stimulus, just that racist and classist ideologies hate that other than teh rich get a break, even if it helps the economy.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greenspan-chides-republicans-pushing

So yes, TAX CUTS ARE HANDOUTS TO THE RICH, most simplistic thinking can't wrap their mind around it, however.

More simplistic thinking. Diff people put diff things into the system, so this zero-sum game you're implying is ridiculous. The top 20% hold 93% of all financial wealth, but are usually physically inept, so they bring in investment capital while the proletariat brings in labor, so expecting everyone to bring in the same amount is like playing the game of Mononpoly expecting it to go on for 1,000 years. Didn't playing the game teach you a lesson about gross capitalism? One person ends up with all the money and property, and that's even with their socialist handout of $200 per go around. The problem is that comes from the bank, or the gov, for the game to last for a long time the go-around money would have to come from the player with the most money, that way the game could last versus the US version of the bank going bankrupt and one player ending up with all the cash. Why are simple board games hard to apply to life?

Not when the poor keep getting poorer at incredible rates. //http://news.yahoo.com/census-us-poverty-rate-swells-nearly-1-6-142639972.html

Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.

So it's great pull out your best ignorance, but these are the facts and to advocate the rich getting richer while being blind to this fact is ridiculous.

Ok, so you're explaining how the well-off get even more money in simplistic terms; no sh!t Sherlock. Furthermore, you're talking a 300k/yr physician versus an investment broker or some parasite that provides nothing, unlile a doctor who is an asset to society, so your example is quite cherry-picked. Now, should that minimum wage person be penalize via no healthcare in great Republican sociopathic fashion? According to you, yes.

Because entitlement programs are stimulus and keep the poor from falling off the chart. I hope I've educated the last sociopathic cell of yours and made you realize we are near GD levels of poverty, of course I err by thinking you care.

Unless and until you become poor, then you feel entitled; seen it many times both ways. We need to stop caring what nitwits think about the poor getting a handout and make healthcare and education government-provided and then see where the future generations take us as healthy, educated people. But no, HC costs have been rising for decades out of touch for many people and education costs doubled during the GWB years, so we're getting away from being a smarter, healthier nation.

Uh, definition? That may be a skewed, blind EXAMPLE of a Capitalist family, hardly a definition of it.

- An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production

- both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.

- production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.

- the owners of the means of production (capitalists) are the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive their income from the surplus product produced by the workers and appropriated freely by the capitalists.

- A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class (proletariat) do not own capital and must live by selling their labour power in exchange for a wage.


Capitalism is the means of production being controled by the elite, controling labor, exploiting it to make more profit; a more mild version of slavery.

And if they keep it for their own good, then that is Communism, in Socialism it is redistributed for the good of the masses. In Capitalism it is maintained for the good of a few people. See, AMERICAN CAPITALIMS HAS A WORST DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH THAN MOST COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

Therefore should be discarded into the trashacan. So when I call your logic sociopathic, don't take offense, I'm just being factual.

Be glad to tell you:

- They ensure the means of production stays in the control however they have to do this, busting organized labor, etc.

- Thru legislation, killing any social programs under the guise of only lazy people needing it.

- Cutting taxes or advocating their legislators do to killthe economy and keep wages low


There are 3 for starters. Don't think so? Then explain how Reagan's policies created jobs at a lower rate than even so-called lame duck Carter. Yea, just move along.

 

Gramm-Leech-Bliley were all Republicans, they introduced said legislation that you are b!tching about. It was bipartisan in that the R's were trying to find a way to make the rich even moreso, the D's trying to help poor people. It was just a part of the blowup, however, the tax cuts are what drove the interest rate down to record levels, then that allowed for temporary and artificial home price increases which was the real problem.

 

Your appeal to authority fallacy argument here does not work. You need you EXPLAIN your own argument and answer the original question. Your reference to Alan Greenspan's statement is entirely out of context, as I explain several paragraphs below.

“Stimulus” is nothing but a euphemism for the government injecting taxpayer money (and money that we do not even have) into facets of society to supposedly get the economy running again and people back to work. It is nothing but a quick fix that serves to harm us more in the long run. In this case, you are not even using the term "stimulus" correctly. Rather, you seem to refer to all social programs as "stimulus" programs, which is an incorrect use of the term.

What in the world are you talking about? So you’re calling me a “racist” now, even though I haven’t said ANYTHING about race in this entire thread? Way to sink to a new low.

You fail to understand the article. The main point can be summed up by one quote in the article: “[Greenspan was] telling the Republicans it would be "disastrous" to extend the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT PAYING FOR THEM.” The key is the last four words. Greenspan isn’t saying that the tax cuts are wrong, he is saying that they need to be accounted for by government spending cuts elsewhere.

No they aren’t, because by definition a “handout” implies that someone is being handed out from one party to another. Now let me ask you: How in the world can a hardworking person KEEPING THEIR INCOME be considered a “handout”? Only in Bizarro World could this be true.

No, it’s called LOGICAL thinking.

Pure spin! If a retired man and his wife contribute a total of $150,000 into Medicare throughout their lives, and end up requiring healthcare that totals $1,000,000, then the $850,000 difference has to come from somewhere, right? The math is pretty simple here.

This statement is laughable. You think someone who works flipping burgers does that job just because they are more physically fit than a plastic surgeon or stock broker?!! That’s hilarious. You are so far lost it's just sad.

I don’t expect everyone to bring in the same amount. Where have I ever said that? Seems like another stawman argument to me.

That’s not true at all. My wife and I are both very hard working people, and we owe our success to capitalism, not government “entitlements.”
So what if the rich are getting richer: That’s a GOOD thing, and it’s expected. It means that they live in a prosperous nation and they are able to build upon their investments with their wealth.

Ah, but the definition of “poor” is QUITE subjective: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty . A substantial percentage of America’s “poor” own luxury items that I do not (including a HOME).

As I said before, if you live in a country where the rich are getting poorer, GET OUT NOW, because that country is either failing or turning into a fascist state. Your facts show us nothing. The rich are supposed to get richer: They make more money and have more money to invest (DUH!!!): If they were making less money, then there would be something fishy going on.

Wow, you lack of reading comprehension astounds me. I’m not “cherry-picking” anything. Rather, I am comparing an example of profession of the “rich” (e.g. a physician) to a example of the “poor” (e.g. a janitor). If it makes you happy, you can substitute "investment banker" for "physician," since it makes no difference in the example. An investment bank makes money for others, and thus he makes money for himself. That’s how most people make money: That’s how the economy works.

Wrong again. He should be able to buy as much healthcare as HE can afford. He is not entitled to anything else, because then he ends up STEALING from future generations (talk about “sociopathic fashion), like the debt debacle that we are currently in. I am not a republican (I define myself as a libertarian (speficially a Minarchist)), but I do agree with some Republicans' healthcare plan, including allowing people to save money (tax-free) in funds that could only be used to pay for healthcare-related bills (similarly to 529 plans and college expenses).

That’s not true at all. Rather, these entitlement programs serve merely to make the poor dependent on the government and to continue to make bad choices in their lives, rather than accept responsibility for their actions. Can’t you see the fact that so many people receiving food stamps are morbidly obese is a travesty? Can’t you see the fact that most of the “poor” in America own the same luxury items as the “rich?”

More baseless name-calling on your part. If you want to see a real sociopath, just look in the mirror.

What? Are you saying that those who work hard for their money are the ones how have illegitimate sentiments of "entitlement?" Such backwards line of reasoning is insane to me.

Be careful what you wish for. Government-controlled healthcare means little to no healthcare in America.

Healthcare costs are rising for two main reasons. First, new and most costly procedures are constantly being developed. Second (and much more importantly), people think that they are ENTITLED to these new and costly procedures (along with everything else), and want to pay as little as possible. People that don’t have the money or insurance won’t pay, and hence the cost of healthcare for everyone else goes up. Those on Medicare often put in far less to the system than they take out because they feel that they are “entitled”, and hence the healthcare for everyone else goes up. Those on Medicaid put in little to no money into the system (and, like everyone else, they feel “entitled&#8221, and thus the costs of healthcare for everyone else goes up (do you see the trend here)

That’s not the definition according to Websters. Rather, your statement is an absurd caricature.

Capitalism, unlike any other system, works for everyone who wants to work hard and smart for a living.

Are you kidding me? Go to Cuba and North Korea and tell me how the average citizen is doing . Even in the “rich” in those countries envy the most destitute of us in America.

 

You’re just being obtuse as usual and executing the reasoning skills of a retarded monkey, so I don’t take offense to your baseless statements above. I stand by my previous statement 100%: If you have not suffered any major catastrophe beyond your control and STILL manage to end up poor, then it is entirely YOUR fault. It is not the fault of the rich. It’s not the fault of capitalism. It’s all on YOU. Like all brainless Democrats/liberals, you expect all adults to live in a perpetual infancy, where the big government can be our mommy, and we can all suckle on her teat for nourishment, and nothing at all is ever our fault. You people are really sick in the head.

This is not even a complete sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Again, how would the government “killing social programs” cause the rich to control wealth? A rich person gets the same number of votes as everyone else, so they wouldn’t even be the ones cutting the programs. Hence, this certainly would not cause the poor to “bend to the will” of the rich.

You clearly have never taken an economics course, so let me educate you. Lowering taxes HELPS the economy and keeps people EMPLOYED.

LOL! Revisionist history makes me laugh.

 

I know, I'm bad like that, I'm getting wrist surgery under Obamacare and I'm actually going to believe the doctor with all of his advice. I'm an aircraft mechanic, amazing how my bosses actually believe what I recommend. What you call authority, which Greenspan has none at this point so your use is pathetic, is actually expertise. Part of my argument IS the use of expert knowledge. See, I also have my BS in Justice and wanted to be an attorney, I've watched a lot of trails and they use experts on science and a myriad of other areas; wow, imagine that, some people have a lifetime of knowledge and you think that's meaningless.

I will go thru and address your ignorance, but it all comes down to this:

SHOW ME A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT HAS BENEFITED SOCIETY OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS. So now comes your idiocy about showing you a fair one to all. Well, my little lamb, life isn't fair, it either benefits the rich corpo-fascists or it benefits the other 80%. We've benefited the rich fascists via fascist pig Ronnie for 3 decades, now that the distribution is worse than with many Communist countries and the worst poverty since the census bureau has been keeping records, it's time to benefit the masses. Of course you want more goodies for the filthy 20% who hold 93% of all financial wealth. We get you.

Yes, like the fascist pig did for 8 years, injected imaginary money into society. The idea with stimulus is that it’s temporary to heal a bad economic condition, not years on end but when you chop taxes you lose tax revs, so you have to supplement that loss eother by cutting programs or deficit spending. It happened under fascist pig Ronnie and it happened under GWB. They both took stable debt pictures, chopped taxes and left a complete mess, yet you’re too blind to see that.

As for all programs beign stimulus, metaphorically they are. I was on a huge government military program a year ago and even the neo-cons called it stimulus. In a way it is, it isn’t conventional stimulus such as Obama’s where he allocated money for different programs, but all of these military programs can be called stimulus, corporate welfare or many other things. You may want to be semantic and call it something else, but what is the ultimate outcome? Same.

You quote me as a partial sentence. Expectedly ridiculous thing is you chide me for grammar and syntax, yet you commit the biggest dishonesty of all and not properly place, “…” where you chop the sentence. Here, I’ll spoon-feed the baby and show you want I was saying: Social programs, whether classic social welfare or corporate welfare are stimulus, just that racist and classist ideologies hate that other than teh rich get a break, even if it helps the economy.

I was referring to ideologies, not you in particular, funny how you never deny it tho. Things that make you go, hmmmm.

Ok, so let’s cut the massive military that matches the world in spending. Oh that’s right, it’s about telling the poor to F themselves, not be responsible in other areas.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greenspan-chides-republicans-pushing

He said, “Follow the law and let them lapse.”
Do tax cuts pay for themselves? “They do not.”

BTW, the Dems have been trying to compromise with the R’s and cut spending while increasing spending over these last couple showdown’s, you see the party of sociopathy has not agreed to increase taxes 1 dollar.

TAX CUTS ARE HANDOUTS TO THE RICH. In your utopia, every person is a sole entity and the government is just there to sit and watch. So your utopia would be anarchy mad max style. The money is printed by, controlled by and belongs to the government. It has their name all over it, currency of any nation. Now, your money is yours for use, but if they decide to change the rules of it and do so thru legal legislation, they can. The US gov is here to keep all aspects of society running and working, if that means changing rules, so be it. Cash yours in and exchange it for currency of another country if you don’t like it. Just because a person has more of it doesn’t mean they are supposed to have more control of what the gov does, altho they seem to have that power. It is the gov’s money that you have control of, sorry if you want to make the rules, but that is the duty of government. So cutting taxes is handing out to the rich.

Well then, I agree, F them, let them die. At least we agree on something here. So tell me, party of family values, what do you do when the elderly are poor? Let em die? I guess so, you have no other assertion but that they cost too much. Hey I know, rehabilitate our healthcare system so doctors don’t make 500k / year, HMO CEO’s don’t make 500M per year. Naw, gotta be fascists and say they deserve that, huh? Love to see your take on it if your parents were the ill ones as you say, nah, they can’t afford it, morphine and die.

I don’t expect everyone to bring in the same amount. Where have I ever said that? Seems like another stawman argument to me.


I wrote: “The top 20% hold 93% of all financial wealth, but are usually physically inept, so they bring in investment capital while the proletariat brings in labor, so expecting everyone to bring in the same amount is like playing the game of Mononpoly expecting it to go on for 1,000 years.”

My point was that the uber rich are more like Bill Gates than the typical proletariat who breaks his back making money for the rich.

I love how you ignore that the top 20% holding 93% of all financial wealth is a bad thing. Hmmm, can you say, acquiesce? Talk about straw man, ignoring that main point and focusing on how burger flippers are or are not as physically fit as a stock broker. Focus….try to concentrate on reality here - the main point was the top 20% hold 93% of all wealth.

You and your wife are not data, they are selected examples therefore statistically insignificant in the context of data collection. Rich getting richer is ok so long as the poor aren’t getting poorer, unless you are a classist person, then wealth disparity is great. So, strawman boy, gonna address the main point here about the game of Monopoly?

“Didn't playing the game teach you a lesson about gross capitalism? One person ends up with all the money and property, and that's even with their socialist handout of $200 per go around.”

Ahhh, the ole Heritage or Cato Institute; repositories of elitist opinions to be used by conservative maggots everywhere. Niceeeeee, now I’ll post Moveon and we can just agree to disagree. You’ve reached the pinnacle of tooldom by posting an opinion from a RW rag. What a joke, use mainstream media, gov data, etc. Oh, who was it that said to form your own opinion / make your own args. Laughable.

 

Corpo-fascism or corporatism advocate the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, ideals you embrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

So you say it’s normal for the rich - poor disparity to spread? OK, so where does it end? I mean, eventaully the spread would be so great that it would look like a Middle Eastern Kingdom, right? If it keeps going and never turns, then there must be a terminal point of destruction, right?

And it works by being socialist and ensuring all walks of life have basic necessities and redistributing, or in your corpo-fascist ideal, having the rich get so pathetically rich and poor so desperately poor that they cannot afford basics. So Capitalism works huh? We’re the biggest debtor on earth, Communist China the biggest creditor, hmm. And no, I'm not advocating Communism unlike you who is by way of gross disparity in wealth distribution.

I wrote: “Now, should that minimum wage person be penalize via no healthcare in great Republican sociopathic fashion? According to you, yes.”

Instead of being a coward, why not come out and say you have no issues with that min wage guy dying for lack of money for HC ins? Really, shed the denial and avoidance, show us what a sociopath you really are.

As for your deluded beliefs, Libertarians and Tea Bags are all just disgruntled Republicans, mince it how you wish. Look at your sociopath leader, Ron Paul, he’s as confused as Chaz Bono standing in front of a urinal; he’s Republican today, then Libertarian, then Republican.

I wrote: “Because entitlement programs are stimulus and keep the poor from falling off the chart.”

The poor own the same luxury items as the rich - LOL. If we would just end all social welfare, let the poor die off, then we can start over = classism. That’s rich, the poor have the same luxury items as the rich; good one.

Me thinks you are clueless as to the definition; that is hillarious. See, you're supposed to call me a commie, a sociopath is someone who is indifferent to human suffering. I want to end human suffering by ensuring basic medical care as a guarantee, you don't adore human suffering as with a sadist, you just couldn't care less.

Baseless? We are near GD levels of poverty and that’s baseless? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...in-the-midwestern-rust-belt-over-past-decade/ Only to the deaf, blind and mute.

How do you draw that from this: “Unless and until you become poor, then you feel entitled; seen it many times both ways.” Hint: paradigm shift.

HUH, wow, so it would be like what I now live in, so no change then. See, when you neo-sociopaths drain most resource, then it sparks things like Obamacare; deal with it, you made it.

See, It’s great when we agree, IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT, GO CRAWL INTO A DITCH AND DIE. I bet your parents or friends who couldn’t self-insure won’t read this, instead you can come online and post your hate and desire for the poor to die. Funny how the party of family values seems to be unconcerned with families.

That’s because you’re stupid: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Definitions_of_capitalism

Webster's New World College Dictionary 3rd Edition:

"The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth, and, in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government control, etc."

It goes on to cite other like sources that refer to Capitalism as the market controlling the means of production. This is age-old stuff, really, get a clue.

So if you’re born into an inner-city ghetto to a crack mom then it’s the same as being a Kardashian? The brilliance never stops.

I wrote: See, AMERICAN CAPITALIMS HAS A WORST DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH THAN MOST COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/income-distribution-by-country/

See all the Communist countries that are lighter shaded or the same? Riiiight. You have to go to Mexico, parts of South America or Africa to find worst distribution of wealth. Scandinavia kicks our asses. Live in denial, I don’t Give a S.

 

You’re so focused on fault, I’m more interested in people’s aptitude. Michael Jordan was born with great basketball skills, nurtured them and had help along the way and all worked well for him. Some people have great financial skills and some people really have very little in the way of innate or skills accrued other ways, so you say we should trash them, if they get ill, ignore them? This is what I wrote:

“Therefore should be discarded into the trashacan. So when I call your logic sociopathic, don't take offense, I'm just being factual.”

Again, it’s your sociopathic position that we should deny those with poor skills, even poor discretion medical care while they suffer; that makes you a sociopath.

For my broken wrist that I suffered at age 16, progressively worsened until now, how do I fit into that? I’m a skilled person but worked a job w/o HC ins as many/most seem to do today, so the only way I can get coverage is to either commit fraud or now that Obamacare has been introduced, use that. Your theories have holes all over, but your sociopathy is flawless. Funny how, to you, we’re all brainless when look, Meta and I post data, you run from it. Appears to me the moron uses what his, “Diddy” taught him rather than what he can discern for himself using data.

I wrote: “They ensure the means of production stays in their control however they have to do this, busting organized labor, etc”

So I omitted the, “ir” I’m sure even you could figure that out, but this way you don’t have to address it. So give it a shot, let’s hear your elitist, elf-serving crap.

Nothing to do with votes, has to do with starving out the poor so they work for nothing wages. Look at Western Europe, they have vast social programs so employers must offer something better than the street, as they do here, often not much better than the street. Not really hard to understand, that is for most people.

Ok, that’s not an education, that’s an ill-fated, redneck position that is of course, as always from you, unsubstantiated. Did you see Meta’s chart on page 10 where as taxes fall, unemployment rises? That’s data the liberals use, not diddy the stupid redneck faction uses.

You say that to: “Then explain how Reagan's policies created jobs at a lower rate than even so-called lame duck Carter.”

Here’s more data for your redneck diddy mentality.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/

Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/11/08/non-farm-payroll-job-growth-by-president-1948-2010/

Cumulative Total of President Jimmy Carter (D): +10,488,000 jobs
Average Jobs Per Month: +218,500
Total Number of Months: 48

Cumulative Total of President Ronald Reagan (R): +15,935,000 jobs
Average Jobs Per Month: +165,989.58
Total Number of Months: 96

Breaking it down re: Republican vs Democratic president,

- 50,780,000 non-farm payroll jobs have been added since 1948 when a Democratic president has been sitting in the White House, vs

- 35,104,000 nonfarm payroll jobs when a Republican has been sitting in the White House.

 

Sorry, this is not how a true debate works (i.e. You do not ask ME to defend an established and common-sense position). If it is YOUR contention that everyone puts into the system at least the amount that they take out of the system (an idea that is very far-fetched ), then it is up for YOU to provide evidence to support this wild claim that disagrees strongly with the established position (i.e. that it is obvious that there are many people that take out much more than they put into the system).

True, but the amount of money that has gone towards these wars is a drop in the bucket compared to unfunded liabilities, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Why? I never said anything that contradicts this.

We were talking about taxpayer-funded programs, so the simplest way to look at the “amount of benefit” for those that receive taxpayer-funded aid is to assess the amount of tax money going into those programs.

How else can you assess the cost of taxpayer-funded programs?

The graph does not look at feasibility, so you would be making an unsubstantiated assumption regarding your assertion above. A similar chart could be used to look at obese people failing to lose weight. Although many are unsuccessful, such as chart provides ZERO insight on the feasibility of weight loss. Furthermore, the graph that you are referring to makes huge generalizations by splitting up the population into two categories in terms of wealth(0-40 percentile and 60-100 percentile). Of course someone from the bottom 10% may not be able to get into the top 60% (in one generation), but the graph fails to see if that “bottom 10%” person can raise their status to the 20% level or 30% level. It also fails to look at those in the middle range (40-60 percentile). It seems like such stats are obtained for the sole purpose of being sensational, and fail to provide any true insight on the issue.

As I explained above, the major flaw in your argument is you seem to equate correlation with causation.

Nonsensical analogy that is not worthy of my response.

The graphs are not evidence of anything. Rather, they were clearly concocted by a biased source for the sole purpose of being sensational. These graphs offer absolutely nothing but skewed statistics and try to link correlation with causation. Where did you find them?

The graph suggests an “income gap,” but it fails to control for anything, such as the age of those surveyed. It also shows us only the obvious (e.g. that the richest 5% have seen a larger increase in wages than the poorest 5%), since it’s just common sense that a plastic surgeon has more room for income growth than a janitor. Again, this “data” is just more sensationalistic tripe.

I already explained above the faults with this biased graph. You should also be aware that your graph shows that, currently, the rate of those in the 60-100% level dropping into the 0-40% level appears to be nearly equal.

No, because a “funnel” suggests that some outside source is facilitating the “rich” to become more wealthy, which is clearly not the case. If a rich person who has a job working 40 hours per week grossing $200,000 per year gets a second job at 40 hours per week grossing $200,000, then who is “funneling” the extra money to him?

No, I do not agree with you because your outlook is flawed. You equate a benefit in gross terms rather than proportionate terms, but this view is an invalid one. That’s like saying a 400 person will benefit more in weight-loss exercise than a 200 lb person. While technically “true,” it is unfair because we are comparing two people with unequal starting points. Rather, a more fair assessment is to look at proportionate growth/loss. Using this means to view stock market gains, we can see that everyone who owns stock will benefit in proportion to the amount of stock that they own.

Only if you agree that, if a flat tax of 20% were passed, a rich person would pay far more than a poor person or middle class person taxed at the same rate. Only if you agree that the rich lose much more when the stock market takes a dive. Again, this is more silliness looking at gross gains/losses rather than proportionate gains/losses.

It is only far that someone will benefit in a proportionate amount to the money that they put it? What exactly are you suggesting is the problem here?

It would not be really “made up” since it really isn’t the government’s money to start out with. For example, it would be like me anticipating getting a job with a $1,000,000 annual salary. I then plan on buy cars, jewelry, and other luxury items in anticipation of this high salary. I then do not get the job, and instead get a job paying only $400,000. While this is still a nice amount of money to live on, I cannot afford all of the luxury items. The $600,000 difference will not have to be “made up,” but rather it should have never been even considered, since it was based on money that was never mine to begin with. Instead, I just have to do without these items, and plan my life on the salary that I now have.

Yes, but it is clear that you do not understand what this phrase means. It does NOT mean that the rich have the POWER to control the lives of the poor, which is what you were stating before. What this statement DOES mean is that money gives you the fiscal power (a.k.a. “ability”) to buy a items (such as a house or car), to go on a nice vacation, or to plan for a relaxing and worry-free retirement. That’s what the statement means.

Money does NOT represent goods and services. Rather, “money” is an defined as any established currency (usually backed by a government standard) that is accepted as PAYMENT for goods and services.

Absolutely incorrect. First, money is not a limited resource like oil or coal (since the government continues to print more and more of it). Second, no one person can control all the money (this is impossible and has never happened in modern times). Everyone is able to make more money regardless of their station in life, and a rich person has NO effect whatsoever in a poor persons ability to make money. On the contrary, usually poorer people make money of rich people, as in employment or owning stock in a successful company.

 

The analogy was apt.

First of all, as I explained in my prior post, money DOES NOT equal control of resources. This is absurd. Because of this fact, the analogy is apt (fat people “control” food just like the rich people “control” money).

YES!!! By George, I think he’s got it!

Not true. Regarding how much money one can attain, there are certainly time constraints (there are only 24 hours in a day and you will only live a certain number of years), and there are constraints set by the market and taxes. So certainly there are restraints for both the obese and the wealthy

Age is not controlled here (you would expect a 65 year old person who has worked his whole life to have a substantially more sum of money than a 20 year old who just entered the work force).

Really? The skinniest among us can weigh around 70 lbs, and the most obese among us can weigh 1000 lbs (hence, around an approximate 14 X difference).

Again, you example does not control for age, where it is obvious that someone who worked for 40 years will have MUCH more money saved up than someone just entering the workforce.

Second, a premature neonate can weigh 3 lbs or less. Hence, even your figure of “491 times” fits this analogy as well (I love how apt this analogy is)!

Not absurd according to the facts above.

But we aren’t trapped in a cave (as I said before): We are living in the real world where we can create both food and wealth. Thus, your analogy just does not hold up.

No, it does not "hurt" them. Rather, it teaches them to be self sufficient and not to rely on “entitlements.”

If my grandmother gave me $1000 per month on my birthday for many years, and suddenly cut my birthday gift to $100, would you say that she is “hurting” me? She is still giving me a gift that I did not really earn, so why do you think my grandmother is "hurting" me?

I suggest you re-read your sources and stop turning them into travesties. From Websters, capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” A capitalist is “a person who favors capitalism.” Hence, my examples hold true. Your caricatures do not.

Who am I? I am one of those evil “rich” people (according to Obama’s definition) who you state gets all of his money “funneled” to his accounts by an unknown source.

Raw resources and fiscal wealth are two entirely separate things. How can you not understand this? How old are you?

No. That’s a fact. Don’t believe me? Then name me someone in modern times that controlled all of the wealth of a free nation.

Okay, then name me a GROUP of people modern times that controlled all of the wealth of a free nation.

Yes. You clearly do not.

Yes. You clearly do not.

In stark contrast to your analogy, mine was actually valid.

No, they haven’t. Few people have suffered major catastrophes (e.g. a major illness, life-changing accident, untimely loss of the family breadwinner, etc). Regarding the others who have not suffered similar tragedies: Many of them are either underachievers and/or deadbeats. Many others merely continue to make stupid life choices.

Capitalism is regulated PLENTY, and to even suggest that our system (with our government/central banking system having true monopoly on money) is “unregulated capitalism” is laughable.

How does my working hard as a physician and earning a good salary for my family translate to “controlling” the wealth of others? How does my wealth have ANYTHING to do with the wealth of anyone else? I provide a highly skilled form of labor, so to suggest that I “lay claim” to anything is nonsense: I work for every penny.

This is ludicrous. Are you saying that my monetary wealth allows me to somehow control the natural gas and coal that you need to heat your home? This assertion is absolutely wacko, and not even worthy of a length response.

 

What happened to your response to my posts? Acquiesce?