Lie of the year, 2011 yeah it's democrats

[AVG-JOE]

you could try a communist country,, that might suit you better.

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Given the mobility we have....it means you can get some of that wealth if that is what tickles your pickle.

Interesting point but not my question.

We live in an economy with a tax code and other political realities that have resulted in a distribution of wealth curve that is skewed, resulting in a favored few controlling most of the wealth.

I say that using the distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of a healthy economy, our economy has the "check engine" light on.

Some seem to argue that having the wealth distribution curve skewed toward a favored class works better... I'm curious as to why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems wont rest until they turn every US city into Detroit

 

[bripat9643]

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

It irritates envious losers like you.

 

[bripat9643]

you could try a communist country,, that might suit you better.

I hear everyone in North Korea makes exactly the same amount.

That has nothing to do with a balanced distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of how well an economy is running.

ROFL! Watch the drone cluck like a chicken when the logical conclusion of his idiocy is pointed out!

What the hell is the "balanced distribution of wealth?" What makes it "balanced?" IF some having more than others is bad, then you must support the kind of economy that the citizens of N. Korea enjoy.

I say the wealth distribution curve of a healthy economy will resemble a nice smooth bell, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people, and tapers at the extremes proving the value of hard work on one side and the trials of life on the other.

You don't understand a thing about mathematics or statistics, do you? If income resembled a bell curve, that wouldn't mean the wealthy wouldn't get a much larger chunk of it than the rest of us. The rich will always have a larger chunk than the rest of us. That's an inherent feature of wealth. To be wealthy means you have a larger chunk of the national income than the rest of the population.

What makes an economy run better with a distribution of wealth curve skewed towards a favored class like ours is?

Educate me.

ROFL! According to your definition of the term "skewed," it would be impossible to have a distribution that wasn't skewed. You define "skewed" to mean some people earn more than other people. The only way to eliminate "skew" is to eliminate wealthy people.

 

[bripat9643]

The central concept behind Medicare is a guaranteed benefit offered by a public health insurer that pays doctors and hospitals for medical services rendered to beneficiaries. The GOP voted to dismantle that insurer ("Medicare") and to instead tell the elderly to go look for an Aenta or Anthem plan like everyone else. The fact that old folks will get a coupon in the process isn't some saving grace that undoes the destruction of Medicare.

That's simply your bullshit opinion based on absolutely nothing. The central concept behind Medicare is to provide the elderly with medical care. All the qualifiers you added are just Democrat pablum.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

PolitiFact | Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care "because Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Clearly the Republicans just let the Democrats win this year. From your link:

It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included "death panels." In 2010, it was that the plan was a "government takeover of health care."

Of course - one of the requirements for something to be a lie is that the teller know its not true. Unfortunately, the field of mostly morons running for the Republican candidacy don't even know when they are wrong. I have no doubt that Michelle Bachmann really does think John Wayne is from Waterloo, Iowa.

 

[Article 15]

Why?

What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

you could try a communist country,, that might suit you better.

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

 

[francoHFW]

PolitiFact | Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care "because Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Clearly the Republicans just let the Democrats win this year. From your link:

It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included "death panels." In 2010, it was that the plan was a "government takeover of health care."

Of course - one of the requirements for something to be a lie is that the teller know its not true. Unfortunately, the field of mostly morons running for the Republican candidacy don't even know when they are wrong. I have no doubt that Michelle Bachmann really does think John Wayne is from Waterloo, Iowa.

muscled my azz LOL....total Pubcrappe....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dems wont rest until they turn every US city into Detroit

You know, Frank - that kind of tired, fear-mongering rhetoric may have worked when Karl Rove perfected the technique in 2000 and 2004, but any more it's just boring.

You got ANYthing else?

 

[Article 15]

Dems wont rest until they turn every US city into Detroit

You know, Frank - that kind of tired, fear-mongering rhetoric may have worked when Karl Rove perfected the technique in 2000 and 2004, but any more it's just boring.

You got ANYthing else?

You're either with us or against us?

You can't support the troops if you don't support the war?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

It irritates envious losers like you.

O.k. so we have irritation among the citizenry. Not really a personal political goal of mine, but this is America and I'll defend your right to be wrong.

Are you SURE that pursuing political policy for the sole purpose of pissing people off is a good thing? I have to tell you - I'm just not seeing it.

 

[freedombecki]

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Given the mobility we have....it means you can get some of that wealth if that is what tickles your pickle.

Interesting point but not my question.

We live in an economy with a tax code and other political realities that have resulted in a distribution of wealth curve that is skewed, resulting in a favored few controlling most of the wealth.

I say that using the distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of a healthy economy, our economy has the "check engine" light on.

Some seem to argue that having the wealth distribution curve skewed toward a favored class works better... I'm curious as to why?

First off, Merry Christmas, AVG-JOE.

Seems I recollect the nation originated as one devoted to granting human beings the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some people pursuehappiness through the attainment wealth with hard work and market vigilance. Some want to manufacture and pursue wealth in that way for themselves and good salaries for others. If they create a market, it follows they should harvest their own efforts. It's a tenet of society.

The nation was not intended by the founders to be a nanny state. Those kind of systems result in too many wanting a free ride, and not enough to haul their weight for them. Such a society dissolves like the cannibalism it is. When the victim is eaten, there is nothing left for anyone to eat, and everyone starves. The system of free enterprise gives people opportunity to develop their own ideas.

Today's people have removed the right to life of the baby's in Roe v. Wade. Before that, it was against the law to take a baby's life and toss it in the trash.

Liberty has been threatened with encroachment laws against the Bill of Rights freedoms Americans were granted originally, such as the right to keep and bear arms with laws that pick away at the 2nd amendment, which was eschewed by the founders. In those days you were not allowed to slander other people. In today's world, laws have been passed so that people could slander anyone who runs for public office, and the push has been to excuse actual lies against someone running. I don't see this as a freedom of speech right, but a wrongful encroachment on people who do right whose bread and butter is the political arena, not the private sector. I don't see this as giving equal rights to everyone, since famous people are sorted out for unlimited punative speech. Equal rights we were founded on should protect everyone from slander no matter what the weather.

I remember learning a lot of things from people around me when I was growing up, but nobody ever told me I was entitled to the fruits of somebody else's labor, and I accept that.

 

[Greenbeard]

The central concept behind Medicare is to provide the elderly with medical care.

Indeed, and under the GOP budget the government would no longer do that (read: it ends Medicare). Hence the "savings."

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hear everyone in North Korea makes exactly the same amount.

That has nothing to do with a balanced distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of how well an economy is running.

ROFL! Watch the drone cluck like a chicken when the logical conclusion of his idiocy is pointed out!

What the hell is the "balanced distribution of wealth?" What makes it "balanced?" IF some having more than others is bad, then you must support the kind of economy that the citizens of N. Korea enjoy.

I say the wealth distribution curve of a healthy economy will resemble a nice smooth bell, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people, and tapers at the extremes proving the value of hard work on one side and the trials of life on the other.

You don't understand a thing about mathematics or statistics, do you? If income resembled a bell curve, that wouldn't mean the wealthy wouldn't get a much larger chunk of it than the rest of us. The rich will always have a larger chunk than the rest of us. That's an inherent feature of wealth. To be wealthy means you have a larger chunk of the national income than the rest of the population.

What makes an economy run better with a distribution of wealth curve skewed towards a favored class like ours is?

Educate me.

ROFL! According to your definition of the term "skewed," it would be impossible to have a distribution that wasn't skewed. You define "skewed" to mean some people earn more than other people. The only way to eliminate "skew" is to eliminate wealthy people.

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

The first step toward fixing the problem is admitting we have one.

A class of very wealthy people is as much a sign of a healthy economy as is a class of folks who just can't seem to drag themselves out of the gutter because they're THAT broken, or because they've given up on themselves. BUT - in between those classes at the extremes should be a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people.

The best way to eliminate the skew in OUR, semi-free market economy, is a tax code that is fair through simplicity, a public budget that's balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

O.k., NOW I've made a statement of opinion* as to HOW to make adjustments in the curve (gauge). If you accept the concept that the distribution of wealth curve is just a gauge of economic fairness and performance, and you're ready to move on to an adult conversation about HOW best to affect the curve, I'm listening. What do you think of fair taxes, a balanced budget law and transparency in politics?

* Please don't make yourself out to be a fool for calling my opinion a lie. Just give me your opinion, and we'll see if we can agree on anything but our disagreements.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Given the mobility we have....it means you can get some of that wealth if that is what tickles your pickle.

Interesting point but not my question.

We live in an economy with a tax code and other political realities that have resulted in a distribution of wealth curve that is skewed, resulting in a favored few controlling most of the wealth.

I say that using the distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of a healthy economy, our economy has the "check engine" light on.

Some seem to argue that having the wealth distribution curve skewed toward a favored class works better... I'm curious as to why?

First off, Merry Christmas, AVG-JOE.

Seems I recollect the nation originated as one devoted to granting human beings the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some people pursuehappiness through the attainment wealth with hard work and market vigilance. Some want to manufacture and pursue wealth in that way for themselves and good salaries for others. If they create a market, it follows they should harvest their own efforts. It's a tenet of society.

The nation was not intended by the founders to be a nanny state. Those kind of systems result in too many wanting a free ride, and not enough to haul their weight for them. Such a society dissolves like the cannibalism it is. When the victim is eaten, there is nothing left for anyone to eat, and everyone starves. The system of free enterprise gives people opportunity to develop their own ideas.

Today's people have removed the right to life of the baby's in Roe v. Wade. Before that, it was against the law to take a baby's life and toss it in the trash.

Liberty has been threatened with encroachment laws against the Bill of Rights freedoms Americans were granted originally, such as the right to keep and bear arms with laws that pick away at the 2nd amendment, which was eschewed by the founders. In those days you were not allowed to slander other people. In today's world, laws have been passed so that people could slander anyone who runs for public office, and the push has been to excuse actual lies against someone running. I don't see this as a freedom of speech right, but a wrongful encroachment on people who do right whose bread and butter is the political arena, not the private sector. I don't see this as giving equal rights to everyone, since famous people are sorted out for unlimited punative speech. Equal rights we were founded on should protect everyone from slander no matter what the weather.

I remember learning a lot of things from people around me when I was growing up, but nobody ever told me I was entitled to the fruits of somebody else's labor, and I accept that.

That's a great "God Bless America" speech, but I can't even tell if you favor a curve that is skewed or not, let alone what about a skewed distribution of wealth curve that might be an indication of a healthy economy...

So what do you think of using a smooth, symmetric, bell curve of distribution of wealth as a simple gauge of a healthy economy?

 

[mudwhistle]

you could try a communist country,, that might suit you better.

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

It's easy.....

Something you're overlooking is most countries have the rich and the poor and little in between.

We, on the other hand, have a Middle Class.

It's a sin to covet. If you're hate someone for their possessions you're giving in to one of the primal sins of mankind. Envy, bigotry, and hate for your neighbor.

It doesn't matter what country you live in, somebody will always have more than you. The difference that any immigrant will tell you if you care to ask them is that at least in America you have a chance to raise yourself out of poverty and become well to do. In most other countries if you're not born rich you have no chance of ever being rich. We have hope whereas in a Socialist society you must accept the life you've been dealt.

I hope that answers the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of those who said the Ryan Medicare plan ended Medicare said that it ended Medicare as we know it.

Replacing the current system with a mandatory voucher system that requires seniors to buy coverage from private companies is in no way 'Medicare as we know it'.

Not a lie. The absolute truth.

If you change one word of the Medicare legislation, then it's no longer "Medicare as we know it." All you've said is that you've changed Medicare. It's pretty hard to change Medicare to make it solvent without changing Medicare. The phrase is so elastic that it's meaningless. It's just a cheap propaganda ploy.

BTW, Obama already "ended Medicare as we know it" with his Obamacare legislation.

I'll give you one thing: liberals are geniuses when it comes to conjuring up sleazy talking points designed to fool the gullible.

Medicare eligible seniors have never been required to buy their healthcare coverage from a private insurance company. That alone ends Medicare as we know it. That is a far cry from adjusting taxes or benefits within the current structure of Medicare.

And, btw, if most conservatives were consistent, they'd consider the Ryan plan unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you could try a communist country,, that might suit you better.

I think I would prefer the bullshit I know.

Besides, that's not an answer to the question...

I repeat: What makes an economy with a distribution of wealth curve as skewed as ours a good thing?

Anyone at all.

Color me shocked that nobody can answer this question.

There are plenty of answers. If you don't believe me, try living in an economy where there wealth is spread evenly and see what happens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The central concept behind Medicare is to provide the elderly with medical care.

Indeed, and under the GOP budget the government would no longer do that (read: it ends Medicare). Hence the "savings."

You obviously missed the OP. Funny how you were screaming that saying Obamacare is a government takeover of heath care is a lie, yet when the exact same people who rated that tell you that Ryan is not going to end Medicare you think they are incompetent dolts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That has nothing to do with a balanced distribution of wealth curve as a simple gauge of how well an economy is running.

ROFL! Watch the drone cluck like a chicken when the logical conclusion of his idiocy is pointed out!

What the hell is the "balanced distribution of wealth?" What makes it "balanced?" IF some having more than others is bad, then you must support the kind of economy that the citizens of N. Korea enjoy.



You don't understand a thing about mathematics or statistics, do you? If income resembled a bell curve, that wouldn't mean the wealthy wouldn't get a much larger chunk of it than the rest of us. The rich will always have a larger chunk than the rest of us. That's an inherent feature of wealth. To be wealthy means you have a larger chunk of the national income than the rest of the population.

What makes an economy run better with a distribution of wealth curve skewed towards a favored class like ours is?

Educate me.

ROFL! According to your definition of the term "skewed," it would be impossible to have a distribution that wasn't skewed. You define "skewed" to mean some people earn more than other people. The only way to eliminate "skew" is to eliminate wealthy people.

I said NOTHING about how adjustments can or should be made to change the distribution of wealth curve in an economy - I simply stated that when the gauge is skewed toward the wealthy like ours is, the 'check engine' light is on and adjustments need to be made to bring it back in line with a smooth and symmetric bell curve.

The first step toward fixing the problem is admitting we have one.

A class of very wealthy people is as much a sign of a healthy economy as is a class of folks who just can't seem to drag themselves out of the gutter because they're THAT broken, or because they've given up on themselves. BUT - in between those classes at the extremes should be a nice, smooth, symmetric bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people.

The best way to eliminate the skew in OUR, semi-free market economy, is a tax code that is fair through simplicity, a public budget that's balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics.

O.k., NOW I've made a statement of opinion* as to HOW to make adjustments in the curve (gauge). If you accept the concept that the distribution of wealth curve is just a gauge of economic fairness and performance, and you're ready to move on to an adult conversation about HOW best to affect the curve, I'm listening. What do you think of fair taxes, a balanced budget law and transparency in politics?

* Please don't make yourself out to be a fool for calling my opinion a lie. Just give me your opinion, and we'll see if we can agree on anything but our disagreements.

Bell curve? Seriously?

Can you provide a single example form any point in history where wealth was ever distributed on a smooth and symmetrical bell curve?

Your entire premise is false, therefore any attempt to address it on its merits requires me to assume that white is left and that up is yesterday. Rich people always have more than poor people, that is what makes them rich.