Considering that many Republicans won't admit that they are, I'm supposted to believe that you aren't one, although you defend all their policies? And you claim that you don't cling to parties or ideology, but clearly you are in denial, because everything you post smacks of conservatism.
Yes, because Conservatism and Liberalism are the only ideologies in the world. It's impossible for anyone to be Libertarian, Volunterist, Keynesian, Austrian, Monetarist, Marxist, Anarchist or any of those other ideologies.
I don't defend all Conservative policies. So far, all you know about me is that I don't like taxes and I'm not a big fan of Government. So congrats, you've narrowed down my ideology to about 6 different ideologies it could be besides conservatism, but you're certain that I am a conservative because that's who you are trained to hate so much.
The world is much more interesting without MSNBC, I promise...
Of course you do, because they don't say what you want them to say. And posting a link and not highlighting where it says what you say it does is a bit suspect. Why don't you highlight where it says that Education spending is projected to increase, if it does say such a thing. I have a hard time accepting data that is not backed by facts. Of course, even if Education spending is increased, unless it is a percentage of GDP it doesn't mean anything, because surely you are smart enough to recognize that the cost of things is always going up.
If you understand basic economics then you understand that all spending is a percentage of GDP. As long as a country has economic activity, someone is consuming somewhere. And as long as someone is consuming, the country will have a GDP figure. Keep in mind that GDP in itself is misleading metric, so spending relative to GDP can be just as misleading. Spending can increase, but GDP can increase at a much faster rate. This will decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, although there is no de-funding going on at all...
Also, if you go to table 9.9, you can clearly see. Everything outlined there for you. Not that I have to outline it for you. Your own source does a good job of that perfectly...
But hey, here is a government source to once again debunk your assertion.
USGovernmentSpending.com is not a government source. It's just a blog website run by someone who records Government data.. I guess you can't even do research without sounding completely clueless. And according to your own website (which is a blog, not a government source), Education spending is projected (government estimated) to increase by $100 billion in 2014/2015 to $0.9 Trillion. By 2016, it will increase to a full $1 Trillion dollars.
Where is this de-funding you are talking about?
In the mid 1980s education spending began to increase again. It flatlined at about 5.5 percent of GDP in the 1990s, but resumed its growth in the 2000s, reaching nearly 6.2 percent in 2010 before beginning a decline in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Charts of Education Spending - UsGovernmentSpending.com
So because spending declined after a recession, that means Republicans are trying to de-fund education? A decrease in spending after the bursting of a massive asset bubble? Can't imagine why that would happened. Is it so hard to debate someone with a modicum of economic understanding?
So, you would be willing to do what you are dissing other people that you "think" are doing the same thing. Interesting.
1% of people on disability have returned to the labour force in 2011 after being on it since 2008. You're pretty good at using Google. You can research this.
Sounds like you are repeating what you read in some text book but have no idea what it means. Gotcha!
I understand what it means, as my entire career is based around finance. I just never thought it would be this difficult to explain economic references to someone who hasn't taken a single course of economics.
You're delusional. Republicans and Democrats are as different as night and day. The Republican party is the party of the rich, supported by dumb middle-class people that don't realize their own party doesn't benefit them unless they are rich.
Are you essentially saying that Democrats are not the party of the rich? So you are saying that there are zero elites/wealthy who align with Democrats?
Who exactly do you think Quantitative Easing has benefited, you?
Oh, so who do you think responded to the Boston bomb explosion recently? Martians? And no, the reason the police no longer respond to petty crime is because they don't have enough police to take care of all the different types of crime - mostly due to loss of funding. You are in a constant state of denial to facts.
More police wouldn't have prevented the bombing and the Chicago police force takes up
40% of the Chicago city budget. The police has plenty of funding. It just has better things to do with it's time. I am in well possession of the facts. All you've done was just link to me some puff pieces from articles. I'm not interested in their opinions, nor yours.
Why don't you show me what you've got? All you have done so far is offer lip service without backing any of it. Like I said before, you don't really know what you are talking about.
I can't disprove a negative. That's an intellectual fallacy.
Again, "almost everything" just tells me you are just blowing smoke and can't really explain your comments. Why don't you give me some examples?
'Almost everything' means what it means. As in, the Government does almost everything for individuals which they can do for themselves. I don't see how difficult that is to comprehend. But if you really can't get it, throw out an example, I'll dumb it down for you.
That you think it is good that the uber wealthy end up paying a lower rate than middle-class might seem to suggest that you are one of the uber wealthy, but based on your inability to explain yourself I seriously doubt it, it just shows that you are in the same Faux News bubble as most conservatives.
Only people with weak arguments create strawmen. All I said was that it's good that the wealthy are paying lower taxes because of tax shelters and loopholes. The poor/middle class have the same tax shelters and loopholes (i.e. laws which allow individuals to pay less taxes legally), as evident with the large amount of individuals in the bottom who currently pay zero taxes. I guess it's only problem when the wealthy tries to avoid taxes.
Since you are so interested in who I am, I will tell you that I'm not uber wealthy. I do work in wealth management on the other hand and I do give my clients exposure in to foreign markets with sounder fundamentals than the United States. We are consistently giving clients leverage in Emerging Markets, Asian Markets, Commonwealth countries and a few European markets. This investment strategy is center around inflation, reckless government policies, weak market fundamentals and higher taxes.
All the wealthy want to do is avoid higher taxes. Regardless of where they align, or which party they support. Warren Buffet, Oprah, Jack Lew, Bill Gates, etc. Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they ALL do it. I just make money by helping other people keep more of their wealth.
What's so damn special about Capital Gains? Why do you think they should be taxed at a lower rate?
I'm willing to bet that you've worked for someone else all your life (or most of your life rather). Your wages, as long as you work and are able to work, are guaranteed. Capital Gains, are not guaranteed. If all investments were guaranteed, then it really wouldn't matter which rate they were taxed at, but they're not. Some investments do not yield a return of 85%. Some investments don't even yield a return of even 50% (especially since not a single hedge fund has done better than flipping a coin in the last 30 years). Some investments even yield what we call, "
LOSSES."
Every great idea needs capital to get off the ground, and many would have never done it without the necessary funds to do it. This is why investments need to be encouraged and to only why to do this is to lower taxes on capital gains. As all investments are calculated and considered after their after-tax return.
The proof is in the pudding. Who is the party that wants to get rid of Education? Who is the party that wants to do away with Roe v Wade? Who is the party that wants to get rid of unions.
You are delusional or don't pay attention to what is going on around you.
What does Roe v Wade and Unions have to do with the Trade Deficit, the value of the US Dollar, the Current Account Deficit, and the Balance of Payments? You shouldn't be referencing these topics if you can't understand them. Especially if all you are going to do is deflect on topics which weren't even mentioned before... It's better this way.
Also, who is currently advocating (or advocating in the past) that we should get rid of Education? Is it possible to cite an example without the information coming from a talking head?
And how are the Republican/Democratic party feeding off my economic ignorance? Do you generally just spout of nonsense or is this a new trend? So tell me, how do you keep them from feeding off your economic ignorance?
I've just explain examples of how both parties have destroyed your credit worthiness, your trade surplus, the value of your currency and your education. Somehow, you've fooled yourself into believe it was only Republicans which caused these things. Maybe I was incorrect the first time. It's only the Democrats feeding off your ignorance, but that's common for most partisan hacks. If I were debating a Republican, I'd have to explain the bigger Government under Reagan and the Protectionism under Bush.
Wrong is wrong, and bad is bad. Regardless of which political official people decide to elect. This is called Objectivism, which is another philosophic/ideology aligned with the author Ayn Rand. It disagrees with your batch of rhetoric, and any point of view which does this is automatically Conservatism, for sure.
Don't blame your comprehension problems on me. You're the one that has been rambling and spewing out comments without any facts to back you up. And you are totally uninformed if you think that prosperity is coming off the backs of only the rich.
Then where was it coming from? Again, in 1954 only 6% of all tax revenue came from the Top 50%, while today majority of the tax revenue comes from the Top 50%. Now, if we are basing prosperity on who is paying the most taxes, then by your logic it is the rich who is responsible for all the prosperity today. As oppose to the 1950's (when tax rates were much higher), the middle class and the working poor were responsible for that prosperity.
I, of course, do not base prosperity on who is paying the most taxes. I am just going by your own faulty logic.
Perhaps prosperity for them. And your elementary understanding of how they account for 98.21% of the revenue without taking into consideration just how much they are raking in (most of them not even having to work for it) just shows how totally brainwashed most conservatives really are.
How much they are taxed relative to their income is irrelevant. If the Government rakes in $1.7 Trillion dollars and the Top 50% contributes to 98.21% of that tax revenue, that means they contribute to $1.6 Trillion of all federal revenue. Maybe you should stop being a sour puss and contribute in your own way?
As for corporations investing in countries other than America, it's only because they can use slave labor, but the tax rates are better for them here and the subsidies they enjoy, over the super profits they make and the measly wages they pay out to their employees are way better here than anywhere else.
Another economic lesson for you. The wages are lower in other countries because they're less productive. It has very little to do with slave labor. In fact, these countries still have child labor because they are so unproductive. If the children didn't work as well, entire families would starve. Many of these people believe Western corporations employing them are great. What are the alternatives otherwise? Thievery, Prostitution, Human Trafficking, Drugs. People in these countries are forced to do these things to survive, while people in the West do these things because they're lazy and have no marketable skills.
And the tax rates are better in the United States than anywhere else? Really? I guess Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland just suddenly stopped becoming nations overnight. Aside from your economic illiteracy, we can add your geographical knowledge to your list of shortcomings.
If that wasn't so, they would have all moved out by now.
Eduardo Saverin is the CO-CEO of Facebook. He is a natural born American and he is renouncing his citizenship and moving to Singapore. Why is he doing this? I'll give you a hint: It isn't for the view...
You need to stay current. Apparently you don't watch the news?
Why Apple And GE Are Bringing Back Manufacturing - Forbes
You're the one who needs to stay current...
Apple's $17 Billion Bond Offering Makes History
And yeah, I am well aware of Apple's "plans" to invest in manufacturing in America, but that is all they are: plans. I'm glad you think it's cool that they've decided to throw you a small bone for $100 million in manufacturing. What a joke.
Do you have any idea how much money they've made in revenue in Q1 of 2013? 43.6 billion. Their net income is 9.5 billion. So you are suppose to be happy that Apple is spending less than .001% of it's revenue to help create a manufacturing base when it's willing to go into debt just it won't have to pay taxes to repatriate their net income...
This is about as pathetic as the time Obama cut $100 million from his $3.6 Trillion dollar budget and championed that as 'responsibility (Yes, it's sad that I remember that). I hate to tell you, but you are a drone. And your knowledge of these issues is embarrassing to say the least.
Says the one that posts a lot of blather without proof. Posting stuff off a textbook may make you think you sound informed but sooner or later the fact that you are clueless starts to show up.
If I only reference what I say when I really want to try. At this point, I'm just entertaining your ignorance. This is really not difficult at all.
Well, I'm sorry. If you weren't able to grasp the meaning of the video, you are even more clueless than I thought you were at first, and I'm really wasting my time trying to educate you.
Have a nice day!
Sorry, but you lack the knowledge and the fortitude to do any sort of educating here. Between your lack of knowledge on any regressive topics, your intellectual fallacies, your partisan hackery and your terrible research, you may have well have a note on the bottom of all your post stating, "©Rachel Maddow."
), but the corporatism I'm talking about isn't the same thing as 'corporate tyranny' - it's not, necessarily, about government that indulges the interests of incorporated businesses or the very wealthy.
