Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a daunting topic because there are arguments at varying levels on both sides and it involves dealing with issues of real wealth or fiat wealth, and because it can be shown that not only the wealth of this nation but that of the entire Earth is finite, I prefer not to engage in such a diversionary discussion. For the purpose of the discussion at hand I am satisfied with the fact that in every recorded example of wealth distribution it is clearly shown that proportional disparity exists between the upper and lower economic classes. When one increases, the other decreases -- as is clearly the case in the current U.S. example.Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.
Your memory of the depression is wrong. The marxists lengthened the depression.Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.I don't think anyone is claiming that The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount. Productivity has doubled over the last 30 years (at the cost of a lot of stress for just about everybody) so the wealth of the nation couldn't have helped but grow. The beef is that those productivity gains and the resulting increase in wealth almost exclusively went to the top 25%, overwhelmingly to the top 1% and grotesquely to the 0.01%.
Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.
One example is the plainly measurable progression of increasing CEO salaries (and bonuses) as the wage level of their corporate employees remains the same or decreases proportionally. Another example is the reduction in the living standard of those whose jobs are exported and are forced into jobs at half their former wages -- while the "earnings" of those who benefit from the transitions are increased massively. Another example is that of crooked bankers who foisted usurious mortgages on unsuspecting victims who are foreclosed and forced into poverty. And on and on.[
When you look at B.100 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations
here....... http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/annuals/a2005-2012.pdf
Why does one cohort have to decrease when another increases?
Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream. I have been studying and then reading about how to address bad economies for over 40 years. Not only have I never seen a credible accusation that Marxists were the problem during the great depression, I have never seen ANY such accusation. We must be reading things in different places.Your memory of the depression is wrong. The marxists lengthened the depression.Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.
But hey, why stop at 2years let's make unemployment 40years or SS whichever comes first then they don't need to make stuff up to get on disability. I'm sure we can get unemployment up to 90% if we try really really hard.
Uh, where did you get 2 years. UE is a state program. Each state varies in what it takes to get ue, and how long it lasts. The fed has passed extensions to state programs in an effort to cover those having a difficult time finding jobs. In twelve states, total ue insurance payments are for 40 weeks. In seven state, it lasts for 73 weeks. Every other state is somewhere in-between. So, from what I can see, your number is way wrong.Your memory of the depression is wrong. The marxists lengthened the depression.Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.
But hey, why stop at 2years let's make unemployment 40years or SS whichever comes first then they don't need to make stuff up to get on disability. I'm sure we can get unemployment up to 90% if we try really really hard.
Because the universe is infinite. (Wealth isn't.)Why limit to this earth? Why not just say the universe has a finite mass therefore...
Is that the way I see taxes? Revenge? Revenge for what? You make a lot of assumptions and the right-wing brainwash is starting to manifest.Wealth is a measure of value of production. You are looking at wealth as a measure of that which can be redistributed. Not of that which can be produced. You see taxes as a means to enact revenge on the wealthy for some evil that you assumed they did to you.
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances.Is a rich person evil when he uses his money to buy a company?
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances. And I don't know about the word "evil." The words greedy and devious are sometimes appropriate in these transactions. But "evil" seems kind of nuts.Is he evil when he makes a profit selling the company?
Really? And some people are paranoid. (Funny how that is.)Most people that think profits are evil, don't have a problem with personally receiving the spoils of said evil profits. Funny how that is.
Well, to me, what may make the grade to evil is the ownership of politicians by business. Politicians are way too often for sale. And, if you do not believe that wealth redistribution that we have seen over the past 30+ years is not based on politicians paid by the wealthy, then I may have to go to florida and buy some swamp land to sell you. Because, as a simple fact of life, the income of our nation has been redistributed to the wealthy from the middle class. It has not happened by chance. And, the final straw (so far) was citizens united, which the people of no country in the world can believe we allowed to pass. Of course, "we" did not. It was made law by a few politicians in judges robes.Because the universe is infinite. (Wealth isn't.)Why limit to this earth? Why not just say the universe has a finite mass therefore...
Is that the way I see taxes? Revenge? Revenge for what? You make a lot of assumptions and the right-wing brainwash is starting to manifest.Wealth is a measure of value of production. You are looking at wealth as a measure of that which can be redistributed. Not of that which can be produced. You see taxes as a means to enact revenge on the wealthy for some evil that you assumed they did to you.
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances.
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances. And I don't know about the word "evil." The words greedy and devious are sometimes appropriate in these transactions. But "evil" seems kind of nuts.Is he evil when he makes a profit selling the company?
I have nothing against rich people, per se. In fact I've know a few. My problem is with the kind of excessive wealth that derives from inequitable means of distribution and acquisition. I
f you wish to know what I mean by that, take the time to watch the Inside Job video via the link in my Signature Line. I know you don't want to do that, and I believe it will make you unhappy if you do, because it will conflict with the indoctrinated beliefs which have been imbedded in your mind over the years by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. But you'll be doing yourself a favor by learning the truth.
Really? And some people are paranoid. (Funny how that is.)Most people that think profits are evil, don't have a problem with personally receiving the spoils of said evil profits. Funny how that is.
I don't know if it's sad or funny how these brainwashed right-wingers are seeing "commies" and "Marxists" behind the drapes. They completely ignore the ruinous cost of a totally unnecessary, immoral, and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation by an elitist right-wing President on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family friends of his oil-dynasty family, but they complain about the cost of extended unemployment benefits.[Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream.
Yup. I have learned that trying to have a rational conversation with conservatives is exactly that. Like trying to have such a discussion with mental patients. And I have said so many times. You can present irrefutable proof, and they just keep on truckin. Just ignore the proof, and say stupid things over and over and over and.....I don't know if it's sad or funny how these brainwashed right-wingers are seeing "commies" and "Marxists" behind the drapes. They completely ignore the ruinous cost of a totally unnecessary, immoral, and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation by an elitist right-wing President on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family friends of his oil-dynasty family, but they complain about the cost of extended unemployment benefits.[Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream.
Sometime visiting this forum is like working in a mental hospital.
Some of them are guilty of these things, yes. Some CEOs, however, built their companies from the ground up and/or are majority owners. So they can do what they want with their companies. Just because our government refuses to do their job to break up this oligopoly of CEO leaders, does not give you the right to profit from taxing everyone above an artificial line of wealth. Two wrongs does not a right make.One example is the plainly measurable progression of increasing CEO salaries (and bonuses) as the wage level of their corporate employees remains the same or decreases proportionally. Another example is the reduction in the living standard of those whose jobs are exported and are forced into jobs at half their former wages -- while the "earnings" of those who benefit from the transitions are increased massively. Another example is that of crooked bankers who foisted usurious mortgages on unsuspecting victims who are foreclosed and forced into poverty. And on and on.[
When you look at B.100 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations
here....... http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/annuals/a2005-2012.pdf
Why does one cohort have to decrease when another increases?
If you will take the time to watch the Inside Job video via the link in my Signature Line you will find much more substantive answers to your question. It starts off slow but gets very interesting as it progresses. It's very informative.
Link you asked for:Your memory of the depression is wrong. The marxists lengthened the depression.Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.
But hey, why stop at 2years let's make unemployment 40years or SS whichever comes first then they don't need to make stuff up to get on disability. I'm sure we can get unemployment up to 90% if we try really really hard.
Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream. I have been studying and then reading about how to address bad economies for over 40 years. Not only have I never seen a credible accusation that Marxists were the problem during the great depression, I have never seen ANY such accusation. We must be reading things in different places.
And relative to what you say, when are you going to let us know why the ue rate went up over 20% in the 5 years before stimulus efforts started?? Or are you just suggesting that I should believe you. Because, you see, the gov did exactly as you suggest they should always do. Which is to say, NOTHING.
Relative to the length of ue insurance, you need to understand that NO ONE wants to be on it instead of working. Ever see how little unemployment pays??? Ever been on ue insurance. Had a good friend who was for a while, and I can tell you it would be damned hard to scam that system.
Any idea of what you have to be capable of proving to maintain ue.
Did you ever consider that you have to pay into the fund to get anything out. For the most part, people getting ue insurance payments have payed more than they will get out.
I don't know if it's sad or funny how these brainwashed right-wingers are seeing "commies" and "Marxists" behind the drapes. They completely ignore the ruinous cost of a totally unnecessary, immoral, and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation by an elitist right-wing President on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family friends of his oil-dynasty family, but they complain about the cost of extended unemployment benefits.[Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream.
Sometime visiting this forum is like working in a mental hospital.
It has come down. It was extended to up to 2years during Obama's first term. Have you been living under a rock?Uh, where did you get 2 years. UE is a state program. Each state varies in what it takes to get ue, and how long it lasts. The fed has passed extensions to state programs in an effort to cover those having a difficult time finding jobs. In twelve states, total ue insurance payments are for 40 weeks. In seven state, it lasts for 73 weeks. Every other state is somewhere in-between. So, from what I can see, your number is way wrong.Your memory of the depression is wrong. The marxists lengthened the depression.Interesting statements. Do you have any proof of your statements??? In case you missed it, we have recently experienced one of the worst economic downturns of our history. Did you expect that there would not be an increase of substantial numbers needing assistance in the form of ue insurance and job creation as a result?? The result of an economic downturn of the size of the one that occurred in 2008 -2009 required action. Instead, we had one party refusing to agree to anything, and who REQUIRED that about 40% of the stimulus that was passed over their unanimous votes was in tax decreases. The fact that unemployment required increases in ue insurance payments was obvious. And those payments have an almost immediate impact on demand creation, which is in most economists belief a good thing. Sitting and watching is what we did from the beginning of the great depression, in '29, until 1933, And we watched the ue rate go from about 3% to over 24%, on its way to almost 25%. So, suggesting that we do so again seems a bit backwards.
But hey, why stop at 2years let's make unemployment 40years or SS whichever comes first then they don't need to make stuff up to get on disability. I'm sure we can get unemployment up to 90% if we try really really hard.
How Long Can You Receive Unemployment Benefits? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
I don't know if it's sad or funny how these brainwashed right-wingers are seeing "commies" and "Marxists" behind the drapes. They completely ignore the ruinous cost of a totally unnecessary, immoral, and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation by an elitist right-wing President on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family friends of his oil-dynasty family, but they complain about the cost of extended unemployment benefits.[Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream.
Sometime visiting this forum is like working in a mental hospital.
I'm not a right winger. I didn't like Bush either.
Because the universe is infinite. (Wealth isn't.)Why limit to this earth? Why not just say the universe has a finite mass therefore...
Is that the way I see taxes? Revenge? Revenge for what? You make a lot of assumptions and the right-wing brainwash is starting to manifest.Wealth is a measure of value of production. You are looking at wealth as a measure of that which can be redistributed. Not of that which can be produced. You see taxes as a means to enact revenge on the wealthy for some evil that you assumed they did to you.
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances.
Not necessarily. Depends on the circumstances. And I don't know about the word "evil." The words greedy and devious are sometimes appropriate in these transactions. But "evil" seems kind of nuts.Is he evil when he makes a profit selling the company?
I have nothing against rich people, per se. In fact I've know a few. My problem is with the kind of excessive wealth that derives from inequitable means of distribution and acquisition. I
f you wish to know what I mean by that, take the time to watch the Inside Job video via the link in my Signature Line. I know you don't want to do that, and I believe it will make you unhappy if you do, because it will conflict with the indoctrinated beliefs which have been imbedded in your mind over the years by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. But you'll be doing yourself a favor by learning the truth.
Really? And some people are paranoid. (Funny how that is.)Most people that think profits are evil, don't have a problem with personally receiving the spoils of said evil profits. Funny how that is.
If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?Considering what we both know about how great fortunes are created, if you choose to regard progressive taxation as "stealing," my response to that is I have absolutely no problem with stealing from thieves! One good rip-off deserves another. As far as upper-level hoarders are concerned, they could be taxed at the level of billions and it would in no way affect their lifestyles. That fact alone is an almost shameful irony.
Yup. I have learned that trying to have a rational conversation with conservatives is exactly that. Like trying to have such a discussion with mental patients. And I have said so many times. You can present irrefutable proof, and they just keep on truckin. Just ignore the proof, and say stupid things over and over and over and.....I don't know if it's sad or funny how these brainwashed right-wingers are seeing "commies" and "Marxists" behind the drapes. They completely ignore the ruinous cost of a totally unnecessary, immoral, and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation by an elitist right-wing President on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family friends of his oil-dynasty family, but they complain about the cost of extended unemployment benefits.[Marxists??? Any links to that idea?? I REALLY, REALLY think that is a conservative wet dream.
Sometime visiting this forum is like working in a mental hospital.
Myth: The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount, therefore the poor can only own what is not owned by the rich.
I don't think anyone is claiming that The Nation's wealth is a fixed amount. Productivity has doubled over the last 30 years (at the cost of a lot of stress for just about everybody) so the wealth of the nation couldn't have helped but grow. The beef is that those productivity gains and the resulting increase in wealth almost exclusively went to the top 25%, overwhelmingly to the top 1% and grotesquely to the 0.01%.
Compare and contrast please the definition of "poor" in America with the rest of the world's "poor." When I see poor with no job for years on end such as my relatives that have flat screen TVs eating better than I did when I worked my way through college.... well you will have a hard time convincing me. We have too many on disability, too many on unemployment for too long, too many people gaming the systems, the numbers don't add up. We need welfare reform again.
I've seen it. Yes it is depressing and pathetic..but it's still not true poverty by the standards of the world. The fact is, your widow chooses not to improve her lot. She's apparently A-OK with what she has and where she is, or she would have made some changes in the last 10 years to allow herself to pull herself and her children up out of her situation.
People do it every day. I have no problem with money going to women and families who have been dealt a blow that sets them back. I don't even have a problem with women who are dealing with really difficult children staying home in order to concentrate on those kids and receive benefits to allow them to do it...provided they actually do that. That is what welfare is for...to give a had to women who are widowed and raising children.
But I have seen too many people who truly have no concept of gaining indepedence...who expect the state to support them in a manner that they WANT (not need) and who get angry when they are struck by the fact that they actually have to WORK and scramble to earn enough money to support themselves. I had a man yell and scream at me and tell me he hoped I enjoyed reading his obituary....because I told him that he made too much money to qualify for continued state funded health care. True story...he told me that his restless leg syndrome needed medication, and it was my fault if he didn't get it and died as a result.
That's the mentality of many of the people who receive welfare. Not all, but fully half are greedy, lazy, stupid..and dishonest. I saw it every day for years.
