Dot Com
Nullius in verba
Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.
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.
Till you prove causation instead of correlation, it's coincidence.Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.
...The system we have now puts the smackdown on creative people......We must not seek out and punish a creative genius caught with something of value that he's created...
--even if the ratio of valuable-idea-creators to valuable-idea-users more than 100 to 1....accumulation of vast private fortunes....
Thank you so much for proving that the falling income diversity of the 1927 caused the Great Depression and world war, and the 1942 return of income diversity started us back to peace and prosperity.Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.
yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.
So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.
Which, obviously, you do not understand. For example, you don't seem to understand that when there is no supply of labor at half the prevailing wages, it is impossible to replace the existing workforce with workers at half the prevailing wages, however much an employer might desire to do so.
When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.
So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.
I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.
However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.
Sorry to see it come to an end though.
I was learning a few things.
When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.
So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.
I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.
However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.
Sorry to see it come to an end though.
I was learning a few things.
There's more than one side to it. Obama's Marxist "spread the wealth around" is poison from failed systems. At the same time we can't have a gap between the extremes or wealth and poverty because a growing economy needs economic mobility. The US and most developed countries do a good job with both, and poor counties like China don't...So what is the basic premise of this argument regarding income inequality ? I have not really been able to identify it...in total.
There's more than one side to it. Obama's Marxist "spread the wealth around" is poison from failed systems. At the same time we can't have a gap between the extremes or wealth and poverty because a growing economy needs economic mobility. The US and most developed countries do a good job with both, and poor counties like China don't
My point is that income equality is not a positive benefit, nor a beneficial factor in the operation of an economic market.When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.
However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.
Sorry to see it come to an end though.
I was learning a few things.
So what is the basic premise of this argument regarding income inequality ?
I have not really been able to identify it...in total.
My point is that income equality is not a positive benefit, nor a beneficial factor in the operation of an economic market.
Those who preach it almost always desire an equality of results by twisting the rules against the accomplishments of those with the daring do to go out and make something of themselves, who then become the captains of industry, by protecting the obsolete and incompetent, or penalizing the efficient, hard working and visionary.
It's only an issue to social engineers desiring a return to a feudal or caste based social structure. The basic tenants of individual freedom are incompatible with this philosophy.
That said, if the inequity gets too large, it becomes a burden on the macro-economy.
" Nevertheless, a 5-10% increase on the top rate would be quite reasonable, and needed to pay down the deficit. "
If we were really paying down the debt I'd go along with this. But we all know that isn't the case, lib/dems raise taxes for one reason and one reason only - to spend more money. When the gov't wastes as much money as they are on bullshit like Solyndra and high speed rail, and refuse to take money out of that area to pay for FEMA, that's when I know beyond doubt that debt/deficits are not their focus. When we have a 1.5 trillion deficit and you get maybe 70 billion in new revenue from raising taxes and you squawk like a plucked chicken, that's when I know you have no interest in paying down the debt.
One of the talking heads on MSNBC had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on his show and thay were talking about raising taxes on those rich pieces of shit Republicans...
Well they were talking about raising taxes....
when asked what Debbie would do with the extra revenue from that increase I thought her head was about to explode...
She could not get the words out of her mouth fast enough.
Her answer was spend,spend,spend...
Spend on Education,teachers,infrastructure....SPEND.SPEND SPEND...
Not one fucking dime to pay down the debt...
That conversation told me all I ever may need to know about our friends on the left.