Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, because that means people from the bottom are not moving up. According to Aristotle, a large, prosperous middle class may mediate between rich and poor, creating the structural foundation upon which democratic political processes may operate. The prosperity of this country is tied closely to an expanding middle class. A large and stable middle class has been central to America's wealth and stability for decades; without this middle class the country's future will be in great peril.The wealthy became wealthier while the middle class and it's standard of living shrank.
Trickle down economics is a farce.
Is there really a problem if the middle class is shrinking because they are moving up? I guess what I am trying to say is that your government education is the only farce because you know shit about economics. Sorry, but I am fed up with people ignoring the facts about very basic economic matters.
you mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?Check out the 2002 study "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" in 18 large economies by Profs. Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti and Schiantarelli. It proves that supply-side economics works. Sorry to rain on your parade.
I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.
like that pew poll you always talk about
it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moronyou mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?I don't know. Anytime someone on this board has said to me, "Go read a report" they don't quote a single word out of, it always says the opposite of what they think it says. Every single time. I'm not going to go read an entire report they don't even bother to link to. It's too much work to prove someone wrong who is too lazy to actually back up their position. It shows they are not really interested.
like that pew poll you always talk about
You mean this one:
(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
----------------------------
You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".
Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.The plan has been to concentrate the wealth of the nation among the top 1%. Obviously, if no one else has any money, the economy will never grow.
I'm just wondering what the plan is? What is the expected outcome?
While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.
You mean this one:
(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
----------------------------
You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity, Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a tribal-moral community united by sacred values that hinder research and damage their credibility and blind them to the hostile climate theyve created for non-liberals.
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity, Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a tribal-moral community united by sacred values that hinder research and damage their credibility and blind them to the hostile climate theyve created for non-liberals.
Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but there were about million Trash 80's sold mostly in 1980's. I worked for a school district in the 1986 and we had hundreds if not thousands of Trash80's and Apple II's in the classroom. There were loads of games such as Pong, Packman, and Flight Simulator. There was the Vic 20 and Commodore 64. available for just a few hundred dollars. Hundreds of thousands of these were sold in 80's, mostly at K-mart and Walmart.Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.
Millions of low cost computers?
The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.
a couple hundred back in the 80's was not "cheap"Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but there were about million Trash 80's sold mostly in 1980's. I worked for a school district in the 1986 and we had hundreds if not thousands of Trash80's and Apple II's in the classroom. There were loads of games such as Pong, Packman, and Flight Simulator. There was the Vic 20 and Commodore 64. available for just a few hundred dollars. Hundreds of thousands of these were sold in 80's, mostly at K-mart and Walmart.Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.
Millions of low cost computers?
The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.
Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.
Millions of low cost computers?
The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.
it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moronyou mean like you read everything the opposite of what it actually says?
like that pew poll you always talk about
You mean this one:
(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
----------------------------
You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".
just a particular group of them
it doesnt poll ALL scientists, moronYou mean this one:
(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
----------------------------
You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".
just a particular group of them
Dumbfuck moron.
No poll covers EVERYONE. They are based on a sampling. The results are weighted. Scientists connected with universities and teaching were left out because they voted 12 to one for Obama and they didn't want that to skew the results.
What that actually means is that the results were vastly over stated. I'm sure the percentage is much less than 6%.
Your problem is you said I was wrong about what that poll stated. I showed you that you are either a liar or an ignorant fuck, take you pick and if you were man enough to admit you were wrong or lying. Take your pick. I was right. You can't admit the results of a poll that shows Republicans are ONLY a MERE 6% of scientists.
Now this is what's funny. Why would you think it would be more that 6%? You and your cohorts assume there must be some mistake. That there must be more Republicans in science.
WHY?
WHY would you think that? You only need to read what Republicans on this board and others all over the Internet have to say about science and scientists to know if they have interest. If they did they would be Democrats. Conservative Republicanism is all about "resisting change". Science is growing knowledge. The "opposite" of "conservatism".
I get it. You think that America will see right wingers as "stupid" if it becomes widely known they have such marginal representation in the sciences. Well, too late. The entire world sees right wingers as "stupid". Every time a creationist museum is built, every time a textbook is rewritten to cover the science of mysticism, every time right wingers utter the phrase "irreducible complexity", right wingers are shouting to the world, "We are dumb, and we are NOT going to change".
Now don't you have an abortion to stop somewhere?
diipshit, to get a good cross section of scientists you would need to poll more than just members of ONE groupit doesnt poll ALL scientists, moronYou mean this one:
(10th paragraph from the top)
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
----------------------------
You sure this is the one I'm wrong about? Care to show me where I "didn't get it"? Come on now, don't run off and "hide".
just a particular group of them
Dumbfuck moron.
No poll covers EVERYONE. They are based on a sampling. The results are weighted. Scientists connected with universities and teaching were left out because they voted 12 to one for Obama and they didn't want that to skew the results.
Only a few rich people had computers in 80's? During the 80's, millions of low cost computers were sold such as the IBM personal computer introduced in 1981, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and Commodore 64.While simultaneously lifting the poverty level. Believe it or not, when Reagan was president it was cheaper to repair TVs than to buy a new one, and only a few rich people had a computer.
Millions of low cost computers?
The Trash 80 sold for 800 bucks, the PC was twice that, and the 64 was about 600. The reason I said only a few rich people had one is not just because of the price, it also factored in the fact that they were pretty much useless unless you were a hacker or you had a business that could afford the expense. Millions of sales, if accurate, out of a world population of billions, over a decade, amounts to a few rich people, no matter how you want to try and spin it now.
yes, your own greed for something you didnt earnWhat it really is about is greed. Greedy men can't help but ruining everything they touch. It's part of what being "greedy" is all about. It's an addiction.
yes, your own greed for something you didnt earnWhat it really is about is greed. Greedy men can't help but ruining everything they touch. It's part of what being "greedy" is all about. It's an addiction.
