The "Equality" Fallacy

[MHunterB]

And at the bottom of all that drivel linked to in post #58, was a link labeled 'The Solution'

THE ISLAMIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Yup, that's Jossy pimping 'Koranic economics'....... LMAO!!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.

the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.

Of course not.

Y'all want to take 99% of the wealth and keep it in the elite .001% of Hollywood, Rap, politicians, Union bosses, and party bosses.

The OTHER 1% you are willing to divide evenly among the peasants...

 

[Uncensored2008]

WTF? You're using 1999 data now?

Jesus. You are thick.

Isn't it the claim of your Obamunists that "DA PO" have lost wealth since 1980? (And regained since Dear Leader became our ruler?)

If so, then 1999 data should be fine with you, showing the plight of the downtrodden before Obamunism saved them all in 2009.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The definition of "impoverished" is at issue.


There is virtually no material poverty in the nation.

Such is defined as no home, no heat no food.


There is a great deal of social poverty...and it is engendered by Progressive/Liberal/Democrat policy.

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

From Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

I hate to think you don't know just how many Americans are falling into "your" definition "no home, no heat no food" they grow daily

Data?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Did you know that there are thousands upon thousands of homeless people that are living underground beneath the streets of major U.S. cities? It is happening i…n Las Vegas, it is happening in New York City and it is even happening in Kansas City. As the economy crumbles, poverty in the United States isabsolutely exploding and so is homelessness. In addition to the thousands of “tunnel people” living under the streets of America, there are also thousands that are living in tent cities, there are tens of thousands that are living in their vehicles and there are more than a million public school children that do not have a home to go back to at night.
Homeless Americans living at underground beneath | Time to wake up!

Oh LOOK, Al Qaeda is lecturing us on the homeless.....

May I politely invite your terrorist ass to **** off?

Thanks.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And at the bottom of all that drivel linked to in post #58, was a link labeled 'The Solution'

THE ISLAMIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Yup, that's Jossy pimping 'Koranic economics'....... LMAO!!!!

What's a Jihadist to do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

WTF? You're using 1999 data now?

Jesus. You are thick.

Please.....don't hesitate to show where the premise is incorrect.


Let's review:

a. there is no perennial rich or poor class in America.

b. you're a dunce.

Sorry. I thought the central premise of your initial expose was inequality.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention this (in keeping with the high level of debate in your threads): You're fucked up.

I love destroying you dunces and reducing you to vulgarity.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bottom line first?

OK....there is no such thing as a modern industrialized society in which everyone can or will be materially, or in any other way, "equal."

Wise up.

Speaking of wising up, my dear PC, did you see that McDonalds just blew away the fallacy that anyone can survive on minimum wage?

I guess you will need to start another thread apologizing for their "fantasy budget". Or have you done so already?

 

[expatriate]

as we have already determined, I have more education than you do. Insults are insults. If you think that insults that have certain words in them are somehow not as "nice" as those that don't... well... I think there is clearly a lacuna in your reasoning. Lacuna... that is the new word you just learned yesterday, isn't it? How cute. I can't wait to watch you overuse the hell out of it in the days to come in your attempts to appear smarter, more sophisticated, and more urbane than you really are.

the fact remains... no democrat on the national scene has ever said that we should take all the wealth in the country and divide it equally amongst everyone. NOT ONE.

Of course not.

Y'all want to take 99% of the wealth and keep it in the elite .001% of Hollywood, Rap, politicians, Union bosses, and party bosses.

The OTHER 1% you are willing to divide evenly among the peasants...

you guys need to get your stories straight. Some of you righties claim that democrats want to take all the wealth away from the rich and spread it all around until everyone has exactly the same equal amount of wealth... and some of you think that we want to take 99% for democratic elite. WHich is it? Both of them are equally wacky and equally unsupportable by any facts, but I really wish I knew what the argument was your side was trying to present. It would seem that you all don't know yourself. It's like your hyperbolic streams of inane bullshit have crossed!

 

[Uncensored2008]

you guys need to get your stories straight. Some of you righties claim that democrats want to take all the wealth away from the rich and spread it all around until everyone has exactly the same equal amount of wealth... and some of you think that we want to take 99% for democratic elite. WHich is it? Both of them are equally wacky and equally unsupportable by any facts, but I really wish I knew what the argument was your side was trying to present. It would seem that you all don't know yourself. It's like your hyperbolic streams of inane bullshit have crossed!

One thing about the left, y'all just LOVE the rich. Who is more celebrity obsessed than Barack Obama, yeah, part of it's because he's gay, and gay men go gaga over celebs; but the left in general is in love with the ultra-rich.

Algore, George Soros, Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, et at - that top .001% is the core of the left.

What the left hates - with a passion - is the middle class, what the French and Marx termed the Bourgeoisie. The war the left wages is against the middle, not the Aristocracy - notice that Obama exempted Hollywood from tax increases - those are for the upstarts in the middle - another way the left is pulling the ladder up.

From Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Obama, the left has always coddled and protected the elite. Obama wages war to destroy the middle class, Hollywood billionaires are not targeted, nor the athletes performing the circuses that keep the sheep distracted - nor the well connected looters like Warren Buffet, What the left seeks is to keep those usurpers who climb the economic ladder beyond their station, in poverty and dependent.

Heard a lefty once declare "There was a time when my having a car phone was a symbol of power - now the unwashed have them - takes all the fun out of it."

 

[Gardener]

this thread is a strawman.

most Progressives and Liberals aren't looking for total and perfect equality.

we are looking simply for more equality and less inequality.

that means a larger middle class.

that means more rights and benefits for workers.

that means more wealth of the nation in the hands of the middle class and poor and not just shoved up the ass of the super wealthy.

we want the wealth distribution of the 1950s to return.

more wealth and higher standard of living for everyone, not just the super rich.

that doesn't mean everyone must have the same income.

that doesn't mean there can no longer be rich people or poor people.

such a claim is a stupid strawman.

 

[Gardener]

there are many nations in Europe that have much higher standards of living for the poor and middle class, while still having very very wealthy people.

to say that a nation cannot increase the standard of living and wealth of the middle class and poor without destroying the wealthy class, is a bullshit strawman.

 

[Uncensored2008]

this thread is a strawman.

most Progressives and Liberals aren't looking for total and perfect equality.

we are looking simply for more equality and less inequality.

No, but you are looking for total and absolute control of the people by the state.

that means a larger middle class.

You seek to expand the middle class by completely eradicating it?

Kewl plan, stan.

that means more rights and benefits for workers.

that means more wealth of the nation in the hands of the middle class and poor and not just shoved up the ass of the super wealthy.

we want the wealth distribution of the 1950s to return.

more wealth and higher standard of living for everyone, not just the super rich.

that doesn't mean everyone must have the same income.

that doesn't mean there can no longer be rich people or poor people.

such a claim is a stupid strawman.

You want the wealth distribution of 1917 to return. And of course there will be rich people - they will be party members - and the left will always have the poor, lots of poor - 99.9% in abject poverty. Makes them more pliable....

You offer the paradise of North Korea for all Americans.

 

[Gardener]

this thread is a strawman.

most Progressives and Liberals aren't looking for total and perfect equality.

we are looking simply for more equality and less inequality.

No, but you are looking for total and absolute control of the people by the state.

that means a larger middle class.

You seek to expand the middle class by completely eradicating it?

Kewl plan, stan.

that means more rights and benefits for workers.

that means more wealth of the nation in the hands of the middle class and poor and not just shoved up the ass of the super wealthy.

we want the wealth distribution of the 1950s to return.

more wealth and higher standard of living for everyone, not just the super rich.

that doesn't mean everyone must have the same income.

that doesn't mean there can no longer be rich people or poor people.

such a claim is a stupid strawman.

You want the wealth distribution of 1917 to return. And of course there will be rich people - they will be party members - and the left will always have the poor, lots of poor - 99.9% in abject poverty. Makes them more pliable....

You offer the paradise of North Korea for all Americans.

I would appreciate you not lying about my views.

I want more equality, not total equality.

I want a larger middle class and larger wealthy class, and a smaller number of poor people.

I want more workers to have good benefits. I want salaries to go up.

Don't lie about my views again. Thank you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would appreciate you not lying about my views.

I'm not.

The economic and social programs of the American left can be viewed in action in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and other wonderful, progressive nations.

I want more equality, not total equality.

Of course, which means we must lower the standard of living for the Bourgeoisie. As long as they can migrate toward wealth, there can be no equality.

I want a larger middle class and larger wealthy class, and a smaller number of poor people.

This is not the goal of your party - if you truly want this, then you have been duped. Your party is utterly corrupt - the Progressives and their willing allies in the GOP are raping the nation on behalf of a small, well connected elite.

I want more workers to have good benefits. I want salaries to go up.

Don't lie about my views again. Thank you.

Just by magic?

 

[expatriate]

you guys need to get your stories straight. Some of you righties claim that democrats want to take all the wealth away from the rich and spread it all around until everyone has exactly the same equal amount of wealth... and some of you think that we want to take 99% for democratic elite. WHich is it? Both of them are equally wacky and equally unsupportable by any facts, but I really wish I knew what the argument was your side was trying to present. It would seem that you all don't know yourself. It's like your hyperbolic streams of inane bullshit have crossed!

One thing about the left, y'all just LOVE the rich. Who is more celebrity obsessed than Barack Obama, yeah, part of it's because he's gay, and gay men go gaga over celebs; but the left in general is in love with the ultra-rich.

Algore, George Soros, Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, et at - that top .001% is the core of the left.

What the left hates - with a passion - is the middle class, what the French and Marx termed the Bourgeoisie. The war the left wages is against the middle, not the Aristocracy - notice that Obama exempted Hollywood from tax increases - those are for the upstarts in the middle - another way the left is pulling the ladder up.

From Lenin, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Obama, the left has always coddled and protected the elite. Obama wages war to destroy the middle class, Hollywood billionaires are not targeted, nor the athletes performing the circuses that keep the sheep distracted - nor the well connected looters like Warren Buffet, What the left seeks is to keep those usurpers who climb the economic ladder beyond their station, in poverty and dependent.

Heard a lefty once declare "There was a time when my having a car phone was a symbol of power - now the unwashed have them - takes all the fun out of it."

you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Equallity is not a falacy ... it is just not available yet.

Michio Kaku explains how this could be achieved in the future.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgVWpa4fzU]Michio Kaku: Can Nanotechnology Create Utopia? - YouTube[/ame]

So ... once we are able to create a post-scarcity society ( hint , hint ) we will be able to achieve equallity ( at least everyone will as equal as he wants ).

 

[Uncensored2008]

you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?

I answered your question.

democrats do not seek to take the wealth from the rich, they seek to strip all wealth from the middle.

When Obama promotes punishing "the rich," he always defines "rich" as those making $250K - not Matt Damon who pulls down $100 million per film - nor Algore who sells his propaganda empire to Al Jazeera for $70 million - they aren't "the rich" that Obama looks to crush - they are just loyal party members. No, it's the small business owner, the doctor and the dentist that Obama seeks to grind into the dirt.

Obamunism - it sucks to be us....

 

[Bfgrn]

you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?

I answered your question.

democrats do not seek to take the wealth from the rich, they seek to strip all wealth from the middle.

When Obama promotes punishing "the rich," he always defines "rich" as those making $250K - not Matt Damon who pulls down $100 million per film - nor Algore who sells his propaganda empire to Al Jazeera for $70 million - they aren't "the rich" that Obama looks to crush - they are just loyal party members. No, it's the small business owner, the doctor and the dentist that Obama seeks to grind into the dirt.

Obamunism - it sucks to be us....

Being ground into the dirt...

Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct. I actually hear stories about people who give away money, and do other things to avoid going "into a higher bracket" because they think they have to pay additional taxes on their entire earnings.

Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.

Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. FIVE CENTS!

Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.

Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.

If it is 5% a person making $260K might pay an additional $500. That's right, the proposed tax increase is approx. $42 a month on people making $260K, about $21,600 a month. Forty-four dollars out of twenty-one thousand. THIS is what all the right-wingers are screaming about. THIS is what all the Ayn Rand cultists are threatening to stop working over. THAT is how tax brackets work.

Oh, the humanity!!!

 

[expatriate]

you seemed to avoid my question altogether. why am I not surprised?

I answered your question.

democrats do not seek to take the wealth from the rich, they seek to strip all wealth from the middle.

When Obama promotes punishing "the rich," he always defines "rich" as those making $250K - not Matt Damon who pulls down $100 million per film - nor Algore who sells his propaganda empire to Al Jazeera for $70 million - they aren't "the rich" that Obama looks to crush - they are just loyal party members. No, it's the small business owner, the doctor and the dentist that Obama seeks to grind into the dirt.

Obamunism - it sucks to be us....

not people making $250k, people making MORE THAN $250k.... That includes Matt Damon, Al Gore, George Soros, Barbra Striesand, George Clooney, and ALL them rich Hollywood libruls!