Aren't republicans the true moochers in this country by their disdain for paying taxes?

[Staidhup]

The key issue is local and state control versus Federal control. Fire, Police, Education, Water, Sewer, Roads, Mass Transit, are all state not federal responsibilities. The Fed would be better served by focusing on unobstructed commerce, free trade, national defense, protection of constitutional rights, foreign policy, stabilization of the monetary system, and the funding of research.

 

[Spare_change]

Ok ... I processed these two bits of information, and concluded you don't know what the hell you're talking about. That IS what you wanted me to realize, right?

These charts are so loaded, so inaccurate, so incomplete, they are worthless as data comparisons .... can you, by any chance, show us the impact of automation? Perhaps, you can show us the impact of taxes on wages? How about a comparison of new and small businesses (which would fall outside your 'major sector' nonsense)? Maybe you can do a comparison of taxes paid vs. income, or maybe the impact of increases in government handouts? How about including service industry jobs?

See? The data you present is worthless.

If I had time and inclination, I probably could show you what you're asking and it still wouldn't change your viewpoint. Even the vaunted Cato Institute data that you posted didn't go into that kind of detail.

Nor, obviously, did your research ... which explains why your position is, in a word, wrong. My hope is that you study the information, and in doing so, find out just how disconnected from economic reality you really are. But, of course, I'm not holding my breath.

If you have a point to make using the data you specified, then make it. I have two college degrees and work in a department with 4 PhDs and 4 master's degree holders. I'll get it.

WOW! 2 degrees!!! Work with 4 PhDs and 4 Master's Degrees ......

I am soooooooooooooooo .......

unimpressed.

You are the guy who walked in here with spurious data, tried to pass it off as a proof, thinking we would be all impressed with the really cool colors and lines, had the temerity to tell us to process it, and then when challenged intellectually, try to run and hide.

And, now, you want ME to do your work for you??? I don't think so ...

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

 

[JoeNormal]

If I had time and inclination, I probably could show you what you're asking and it still wouldn't change your viewpoint. Even the vaunted Cato Institute data that you posted didn't go into that kind of detail.

Nor, obviously, did your research ... which explains why your position is, in a word, wrong. My hope is that you study the information, and in doing so, find out just how disconnected from economic reality you really are. But, of course, I'm not holding my breath.

If you have a point to make using the data you specified, then make it. I have two college degrees and work in a department with 4 PhDs and 4 master's degree holders. I'll get it.

WOW! 2 degrees!!! Work with 4 PhDs and 4 Master's Degrees ......

I am soooooooooooooooo .......

unimpressed.

You are the guy who walked in here with spurious data, tried to pass it off as a proof, thinking we would be all impressed with the really cool colors and lines, had the temerity to tell us to process it, and then when challenged intellectually, try to run and hide.

And, now, you want ME to do your work for you??? I don't think so ...

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OP- Yup, ignorant, pander to the bloated rich, ignorant chumps.

Ironically, most wealth redistribution in this country takes place through the tax code through things like the refundable Additional Child Tax Credit (which was passed by the Republican-controlled 105th congress, and expanded with the Bush Tax Cuts), which disproportionally goes to dark red states like Mississippi and Utah that have the fewest tax paying units per capita.

Perhaps instead of such cash handouts, a more strings-attached approach would be more helpful and fiscally responsible.

Like we saw with the 99 week Federal unemployment extensions?

Thanks for the corrupt SECOND Pub Great World Depression, brainwashed shyttehead.Only cost 6-7 trillion, STILL 400 billion a year for assistance to victims.Thank God Dems got in fast this time.

Over 53 weeks collecting a check for a victim? The taxpayers who have to foot the bill for all that lost revenue maybe. Sounds more like someone who just was not willing to take a job, or was the recovery not as strong as the Democrats would like for us to have believed? I am just not sure you liberals could really keep your story straight between your claims of strong solid economic job growth numbers, and the senate's dire need to fight for billions in Federal aid that was so essential because of the high unemployment rate.

 

[Spare_change]

Nor, obviously, did your research ... which explains why your position is, in a word, wrong. My hope is that you study the information, and in doing so, find out just how disconnected from economic reality you really are. But, of course, I'm not holding my breath.

If you have a point to make using the data you specified, then make it. I have two college degrees and work in a department with 4 PhDs and 4 master's degree holders. I'll get it.

WOW! 2 degrees!!! Work with 4 PhDs and 4 Master's Degrees ......

I am soooooooooooooooo .......

unimpressed.

You are the guy who walked in here with spurious data, tried to pass it off as a proof, thinking we would be all impressed with the really cool colors and lines, had the temerity to tell us to process it, and then when challenged intellectually, try to run and hide.

And, now, you want ME to do your work for you??? I don't think so ...

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

No --- that's not what I said .... my mission is to continually and consistently separate the pretenders from the contenders. I will always identify the intellectually effete who believe that their supposed education makes them, somehow, better than their contemporaries, and then, don't exercise intellectual discipline when they post. Instead, they expect all others to fall fawning at their feet, grateful that they deigned to pass one some little bit of their wisdom to the masses.

YOU were intellectually arrogant and lazy - you got caught. Live it, learn it, love it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Apparently they expect the government to pay for everything for them.

Libtards gonna hate hate hate hate hate hate

We're just gonna spank spank spank spank spank spank...spank em hard, in elections.

 

[JoeNormal]

If you have a point to make using the data you specified, then make it. I have two college degrees and work in a department with 4 PhDs and 4 master's degree holders. I'll get it.

WOW! 2 degrees!!! Work with 4 PhDs and 4 Master's Degrees ......

I am soooooooooooooooo .......

unimpressed.

You are the guy who walked in here with spurious data, tried to pass it off as a proof, thinking we would be all impressed with the really cool colors and lines, had the temerity to tell us to process it, and then when challenged intellectually, try to run and hide.

And, now, you want ME to do your work for you??? I don't think so ...

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

No --- that's not what I said .... my mission is to continually and consistently separate the pretenders from the contenders. I will always identify the intellectually effete who believe that their supposed education makes them, somehow, better than their contemporaries, and then, don't exercise intellectual discipline when they post. Instead, they expect all others to fall fawning at their feet, grateful that they deigned to pass one some little bit of their wisdom to the masses.

YOU were intellectually arrogant and lazy - you got caught. Live it, learn it, love it.

Oh, I see. So dropping the highly dubious Adjunct Professor title wasn't intended to have that effect either I suppose. And when issues arise that you can't seem to address, it is posited that these matters have been settled already by the Cato Institute - an institution that incidentally, has Koch brother fingerprints all over it. Excuse me while I laugh.

 

[Spare_change]

WOW! 2 degrees!!! Work with 4 PhDs and 4 Master's Degrees ......

I am soooooooooooooooo .......

unimpressed.

You are the guy who walked in here with spurious data, tried to pass it off as a proof, thinking we would be all impressed with the really cool colors and lines, had the temerity to tell us to process it, and then when challenged intellectually, try to run and hide.

And, now, you want ME to do your work for you??? I don't think so ...

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

No --- that's not what I said .... my mission is to continually and consistently separate the pretenders from the contenders. I will always identify the intellectually effete who believe that their supposed education makes them, somehow, better than their contemporaries, and then, don't exercise intellectual discipline when they post. Instead, they expect all others to fall fawning at their feet, grateful that they deigned to pass one some little bit of their wisdom to the masses.

YOU were intellectually arrogant and lazy - you got caught. Live it, learn it, love it.

Oh, I see. So dropping the highly dubious Adjunct Professor title wasn't intended to have that effect either I suppose. And when issues arise that you can't seem to address, it is posited that these matters have been settled already by the Cato Institute - an institution that incidentally, has Koch brother fingerprints all over it. Excuse me while I laugh.

Quit backpedaling --- you fucked up, you got caught, and now you're trying to deflect. Live with it ...

Unlike you, I don't claim to know it all because i have 2 degrees (yes, I have two degrees - but I never mentioned it, because it wasn't relevant), nor because I lectured at USC. I recognize that there is much I don't know ... that's probably the most valuable lesson of education, by the way, one you haven't seemed to have learned yet ... and I certainly don't let my arrogance get in the way.

Now, when you can't made any headway, you want to divert to issues about the Koch brothers ... despite the fact that I never mentioned them.

You are the typical leftist academic elitist ... you know it all, and you want to make sure everybody else recognizes that you know it all. You have this misconception that your 2 degrees somehow makes you smarter and better than anyone else. Honestly, academic idiots like you are a dime a dozen ... book smart and life dumb.

You're getting boring - just go away.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't expect government to pay for everything.

And yet, they expect the government to subsidize Red States. Go figure.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

so like everything else you all post, you have no facts to support your claim. How righteous of you!!! So name some names of people who have lost retirement? I know the teachers union in Illinois, but that would be because of democrats in the state house and governer. Hmmmmm still no evidence from you on rich people.

Are you one of the few people who hasn't already seen the productivity versus wage graph? Or the graph that shows the rate of increase of wealthy versus average wealth over time? My experience has been that facts bounce off the heads of people like you like peas fired from a straw. I've presented facts countless times before. At this point, it's only when I sense I'm speaking with someone who might take them seriously that I'll go to the trouble.

BTW, your posts seem to be quite devoid of anything besides your own ramblings. Aren't you being a tad hypocritical?

so again, you have no facts, because sir you presented none. I gave you one, and it was to show where the real disengeniune comes from. The Democrats in charge. Look up Illinois pensions!! You won't see one rich dude listed. so please give me your fact sheet. BTW, you haven't yet.

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Little billy do you even know what the word."disdain" means? Yea we can't not stand paying high taxes and liberals throw a hissy fit when companies move or folks like me said to hell with the blue states and move to low tax red states

 

[Wyatt earp]

Funny how the left thinks only Rich white people live in red states

 

[JoeNormal]

Wow, an Adjunct Professor who disparages higher education. I smell bullshit three miles high. So you want to obfuscate by throwing in a bunch of spurious noise and then can't be bothered to explain what it all means. Yeah, you're legit.

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

No --- that's not what I said .... my mission is to continually and consistently separate the pretenders from the contenders. I will always identify the intellectually effete who believe that their supposed education makes them, somehow, better than their contemporaries, and then, don't exercise intellectual discipline when they post. Instead, they expect all others to fall fawning at their feet, grateful that they deigned to pass one some little bit of their wisdom to the masses.

YOU were intellectually arrogant and lazy - you got caught. Live it, learn it, love it.

Oh, I see. So dropping the highly dubious Adjunct Professor title wasn't intended to have that effect either I suppose. And when issues arise that you can't seem to address, it is posited that these matters have been settled already by the Cato Institute - an institution that incidentally, has Koch brother fingerprints all over it. Excuse me while I laugh.

Quit backpedaling --- you fucked up, you got caught, and now you're trying to deflect. Live with it ...

Unlike you, I don't claim to know it all because i have 2 degrees (yes, I have two degrees - but I never mentioned it, because it wasn't relevant), nor because I lectured at USC. I recognize that there is much I don't know ... that's probably the most valuable lesson of education, by the way, one you haven't seemed to have learned yet ... and I certainly don't let my arrogance get in the way.

Now, when you can't made any headway, you want to divert to issues about the Koch brothers ... despite the fact that I never mentioned them.

You are the typical leftist academic elitist ... you know it all, and you want to make sure everybody else recognizes that you know it all. You have this misconception that your 2 degrees somehow makes you smarter and better than anyone else. Honestly, academic idiots like you are a dime a dozen ... book smart and life dumb.

You're getting boring - just go away.

Look who's being humble now. It's funny I didn't detect any of this humility when you were bragging about your 4000 person company or about the pathetic quality of capitalist knowledge displayed on this forum. In the number of words we've exchanged, you could have imparted some actual knowledge (if you had any). I hate to have blown your cover so early in your stint here but I guess the cat's out of the bag now.

 

[JoeNormal]

Are you one of the few people who hasn't already seen the productivity versus wage graph? Or the graph that shows the rate of increase of wealthy versus average wealth over time? My experience has been that facts bounce off the heads of people like you like peas fired from a straw. I've presented facts countless times before. At this point, it's only when I sense I'm speaking with someone who might take them seriously that I'll go to the trouble.

BTW, your posts seem to be quite devoid of anything besides your own ramblings. Aren't you being a tad hypocritical?

so again, you have no facts, because sir you presented none. I gave you one, and it was to show where the real disengeniune comes from. The Democrats in charge. Look up Illinois pensions!! You won't see one rich dude listed. so please give me your fact sheet. BTW, you haven't yet.

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

 

[The Rabbi]

so again, you have no facts, because sir you presented none. I gave you one, and it was to show where the real disengeniune comes from. The Democrats in charge. Look up Illinois pensions!! You won't see one rich dude listed. so please give me your fact sheet. BTW, you haven't yet.

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

LOL!!!! What a turd!
No, there is no money in SS. The government takes the contributions and spends them and leaves an IOU in the fund. There is no lockbox anywhere.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

so again, you have no facts, because sir you presented none. I gave you one, and it was to show where the real disengeniune comes from. The Democrats in charge. Look up Illinois pensions!! You won't see one rich dude listed. so please give me your fact sheet. BTW, you haven't yet.

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

No, those deductions for social security include those costs used for administrative fees. You actually didn't think you ever get back 100% of what you give to the government, do you? When do you ever contribute something to the Fedetal Government that doesn't include "other costs" or fees? What did you take "entirely self financing" to mean?

 

[Spare_change]

I don't 'disparage higher education'. I disparage those who use their claim to higher education to try to flaunt some supposed superiority over others. To try to force your views on others, without validation, and then to try to use your "2 degrees" as some kind of proof that the hoi polloi must kowtow to you 'because you know best' is intellectually dishonest, and frankly, very offensive.

You tried to use disparate data to try to prove a point - the data didn't support your position. When called on it, you pulled out your '2 degrees' card, as if to indicate that all those who didn't agree MUST be intellectually inferior because they didn't just accept your finding carte blanche. Then, when the errors of omission are pointed out, you try to transfer the active to someone else, rather than taking the opportunity to educate those less gifted. THAT was just plain lazy.

The arrogance is stifling ...

You're the one that has stated that your mission here is to educate the poor, confused souls on this forum in the correct principles of capitalism. Here's your chance. I didn't pull out my credentials to put the sheen of impenetrability on my conclusions. I did it to let you know that I could understand a complex concept if you had one to offer. So go for it. Show me what you've got.

No --- that's not what I said .... my mission is to continually and consistently separate the pretenders from the contenders. I will always identify the intellectually effete who believe that their supposed education makes them, somehow, better than their contemporaries, and then, don't exercise intellectual discipline when they post. Instead, they expect all others to fall fawning at their feet, grateful that they deigned to pass one some little bit of their wisdom to the masses.

YOU were intellectually arrogant and lazy - you got caught. Live it, learn it, love it.

Oh, I see. So dropping the highly dubious Adjunct Professor title wasn't intended to have that effect either I suppose. And when issues arise that you can't seem to address, it is posited that these matters have been settled already by the Cato Institute - an institution that incidentally, has Koch brother fingerprints all over it. Excuse me while I laugh.

Quit backpedaling --- you fucked up, you got caught, and now you're trying to deflect. Live with it ...

Unlike you, I don't claim to know it all because i have 2 degrees (yes, I have two degrees - but I never mentioned it, because it wasn't relevant), nor because I lectured at USC. I recognize that there is much I don't know ... that's probably the most valuable lesson of education, by the way, one you haven't seemed to have learned yet ... and I certainly don't let my arrogance get in the way.

Now, when you can't made any headway, you want to divert to issues about the Koch brothers ... despite the fact that I never mentioned them.

You are the typical leftist academic elitist ... you know it all, and you want to make sure everybody else recognizes that you know it all. You have this misconception that your 2 degrees somehow makes you smarter and better than anyone else. Honestly, academic idiots like you are a dime a dozen ... book smart and life dumb.

You're getting boring - just go away.

Look who's being humble now. It's funny I didn't detect any of this humility when you were bragging about your 4000 person company or about the pathetic quality of capitalist knowledge displayed on this forum. In the number of words we've exchanged, you could have imparted some actual knowledge (if you had any). I hate to have blown your cover so early in your stint here but I guess the cat's out of the bag now.

Humility? Me? No way!

But, you ... arrogance? Oh yeah.

Quit trying to deflect from you shortcomings ... they are what they are. Learn them, love them, live them ...

 

[JoeNormal]

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

LOL!!!! What a turd!
No, there is no money in SS. The government takes the contributions and spends them and leaves an IOU in the fund. There is no lockbox anywhere.

I'm going to have to write this day down in my calendar. You not only posted something informational, it was something I'd forgotten. You're right, there really is no trust fund.

 

[JoeNormal]

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

No, those deductions for social security include those costs used for administrative fees. You actually didn't think you ever get back 100% of what you give to the government, do you? When do you ever contribute something to the Fedetal Government that doesn't include "other costs" or fees? What did you take "entirely self financing" to mean?

Well, as Rabbi pointed out, SS comes from the general fund these days. So considering that, if there's a shutdown I would think that those SS payments really would be put on hold.

 

[Spare_change]

You gave me a fact? In which post did this miracle occur?

Post # 165 and post # 167. Here again, the theives are the Democrats, again, pull up Illinois union pensions. All controlled by the Democrats, not rich people, unless of course you're grouping the Dems as rich? I guess that could be, but I'd put them in a different bucket.

Ok, here's what I was talking about: Looting the Pension Funds How Wall Street Robs Public Workers Rolling Stone

Also, since you seem sincere, here are the graphs I was referring to:

P

See if you can process these two bits of information and come to a conclusion.

On the subject of looting from hard working Americans.

Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

Opposing view Social Security isn t the problem - USATODAY.com

So if Social Security is "self financing", why would President Obama say something as untrue as the refusal of raising the debt ceiling would prevent social security checks from going out? Which statement is a lie, Obama fear mongering to seniors or social security is self financing? Is Obama advocating our government continue robbing seniors by looting social security, much the same as Clinton did in financing our nation's debt?

I don't think it was a lie. The funds would be there but if there's a government shutdown, there won't be anyone to send the checks.

No, those deductions for social security include those costs used for administrative fees. You actually didn't think you ever get back 100% of what you give to the government, do you? When do you ever contribute something to the Fedetal Government that doesn't include "other costs" or fees? What did you take "entirely self financing" to mean?

FWIW ----- 60,000 employees at the Social Security Administration