The Lazy Poor

[Wyatt earp]

And the big corporation conglomerates would be gone and the mom and pop operations would make a comeback. It's a win win.

You missed a little something there.

R&D, production, supply chain management, customer relation management, but most importantly, safe products across a wide spectrum

That is just the first 5 items on the list....there are 15 others.

Mom and Pop cannot provide. In addition, I am almost dead certain that the American people are going to flock to you in droves at the lowering of their standard of life.

yeah...go you.

You think R&D would die? You think customer relations would get worse? They're as bad as they can get and our government currently pays for more than 70% of R&D on new drugs, I don't know about the rest but private charities take care of a good deal as well. Safe products? You mean like our chicken that they just announced has contained traces of arsenic for decades? The food from China that contains poison? I can't imagine anyone could do worse than what we have today. Somehow I think not having McDonald's would be a step up. Anything else, we'll find a way to provide. Americans did it before and the top 10% didn't own most of our wealth. We can do that again.

what your ***** is about monsanto with the food and the rest and I agree with you on that. but no one will bother starting up a company and have to pay 90% Taxes would you?

 

[Againsheila]

You missed a little something there.

R&D, production, supply chain management, customer relation management, but most importantly, safe products across a wide spectrum

That is just the first 5 items on the list....there are 15 others.

Mom and Pop cannot provide. In addition, I am almost dead certain that the American people are going to flock to you in droves at the lowering of their standard of life.

yeah...go you.

You think R&D would die? You think customer relations would get worse? They're as bad as they can get and our government currently pays for more than 70% of R&D on new drugs, I don't know about the rest but private charities take care of a good deal as well. Safe products? You mean like our chicken that they just announced has contained traces of arsenic for decades? The food from China that contains poison? I can't imagine anyone could do worse than what we have today. Somehow I think not having McDonald's would be a step up. Anything else, we'll find a way to provide. Americans did it before and the top 10% didn't own most of our wealth. We can do that again.

what your ***** is about monsanto with the food and the rest and I agree with you on that. but no one will bother starting up a company and have to pay 90% Taxes would you?

I don't think I said 90% taxes, I said the people who own 90% of our wealth should be paying 90% of our taxes. It's not the same as 90% taxes on your income.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And this is why you are appropriately named Erroneous Joe.

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

.

Oh, SWEET EVIL JESUS Not this bullshit again!!!!

first- the INCOME TAX is not the only tax. You throw in all the other taxes, most of the burden actually ends up on the backs of the working class.

Second, the 1% aren't EARNING jack shit. Nothing they are PERSONALLY doing is earning that wealth. OTHER people's labors are.

Second, the top 1% controls a lot more than 13% of the wealth. That's my point about who controls the knife, not who does the work.

Finally, this isn't about me. WHy you Wingnuts try to make it about me is always funny, because you really don't know anything about me.

It IS about the country. Now I know you are only about 30 and really don't know any better, but you see, I'm old enough to remember what having a REAL MIDDLE CLASS looked like.

And it ain't what we got now.

 

[JoeB131]

5. This might be something to think about:
Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).

The Hebrews never lived in Egypt.

That's a myth written by shitty little sheepherders who looked at the awesome temples the Egyptian Gods had, and all they had was their shittly little wood temple.

It was kind of the equivlent to Penis Envy.

 

[poet]

But, heck....you don't seem to be able to find any errors you'd care to confront.....?


Know what that means?
You're a windbag.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/291236-black-studies-really.html

It's all error. If rightwing propaganda-ists said it...it's all error, and not truth. And I doubt if you're really an American. We know you're not blond or Supergirl, don't we?

1. If you ever has the opportunity of formal schooling, you will have instruction in how to form a critique.
What you have done in this case, is verify my statement that you're just a windbag.


2. Hint: find some specific error in the OP.
Now....if you can't....that suggests that there are none, and, in fact, it is your perspective that is erroneous.

3.BTW....this is a public message board. I carry out all business in public. Ask whatever you wish in a post, not a pm.

a. " We know you're not blond or Supergirl, don't we?"
My profile pic has always been available to all...even windbags.

b. Actually, I have been blonde in the past.
Why, pray tell, is my hair color important to you?

c. Intellectually, in comparison to you....I sure am a supergirl.

You're a clown.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. This might be something to think about:
Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).

The Hebrews never lived in Egypt.

That's a myth written by shitty little sheepherders who looked at the awesome temples the Egyptian Gods had, and all they had was their shittly little wood temple.

It was kind of the equivlent to Penis Envy.

Why must I constantly prove that without stupid misinformation, you'd have no information at all???


1. As of 1913, the earliest evidence of Israel’s existence outside of the Bible had appeared on the Merneptah Stele.

a. “The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele, bears the oldest known written reference to Israel. Engraved with its current text in 1207 B.C.E., the 7.5-foot-high, black granite monolith was discovered in the ruins of Merneptah’s funerary temple in western Thebes in 1896. Most of its hieroglyphic text celebrates Merneptah’s defeat of the Libyans and their Sea Peoples allies in his fifth regnal year. The text’s last three lines, however,briefly mention a campaign into Canaan against the background of a pacified eastern Mediterranean political situation: “The rulers lie prostrate saying ‘Peace’; none raises his head among the Nine Bows [Egypt’s traditional enemies, by now a literary convention]. Plundering is for Tehenu [Libya]. Hatti is at peace. Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe. Ashkelon has been overcome. Gezer has been captured. Yano’am was made non-existent. Israel is laid waste, (and) his seed is not. Hurru [Canaan] is become a widow for Egypt. All lands are united in peace.” The mention of Israel appears slightly to the left of center in the second line from the bottom. The glyphs include determinatives—signs indicating a word’s category—that classify Ashkelon, Gezer and Yano’am as city-states; but the determinative attached to Israel identifies it as a people, apparently not yet possessing a distinct city.’, Shanks, ‘Questions & Comments’, Biblical Archaeology Review (17.06), November/December 1991


2. “It identified the northern Sinai site Ain el-Qudeirat, rather than nearby Ain Kadeis (which had previously been proposed), as the site of Biblical Kadesh-Barnea, where the Hebrews in the Exodus settled and from whence Moses sent men to spy out the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 1:2, 19, 2:1; Numbers 13:3–21)…. they reasoned that only in the Kossaima district, which includes the sites of Ain el-Qudeirat, Kossaima, Muweilleh and Ain Kadeis, was there enough water and greenery to support a large tribal group. Moreover, Moses, in writing to the King of Edom, described Kadesh as “a city in the uttermost of thy border” (Numbers 20:16), and Lawrence and Woolley thought that the fortifications at Ain el-Qudeirat—assuming, on the basis of pottery, that they dated from the time of Moses—more nearly fit that description than any other site in the Kossaima area.” Lawrence of Arabia as Archaeologist, Stephen E. Tabachnick, BAR 23:05, Sep/Oct 1997 - CojsWiki.


3. Radiocarbon dating of organic remains collected by Bruins and van der Plicht prove Lawrence and Woolley correct.

a. “This identification, which was based on the biblical text, has been universally accepted.” The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, Moshe Dothan, Ein el-Qudeirat, 1965 AD
So, then….at the very least, the Bible has been shown to be reliable as a record of historic truth. The archeological record is in accordance with the biblical text, substantiated by the above evidence.

 

[poet]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...anti-welfare..."

Where ever did you get that view?

Oh...your usual?
You simply made it up.


It seems that both you and your girlfriend snip off tiny parts of posts to attempt to prove some fib....


Example: I am a proponent of welfare.

a. To the poor

b. ...and not necessarily carried out by government.

You made up the bumper-sticker, didn't you.
Isn't that the truth?

If you could read you would have seen in the post above I referred to the 'anti-welfare state'.

Since you just said "...welfare... not necessarily carried out by government"

you in fact defined yourself as exactly the kind of person I was referring to.

Now,

try addressing the questions posed above.

Or, answer this:

Is free healthcare given to poor/low income Americans a redistribution of wealth? Should it thus be ended entirely,

since you profess to believe that the government has no business redistributing wealth?

State not federal.


fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.


See article 1, section 8

lol, so you are FOR the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if New York State could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising NYS taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

lol. you're lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. "
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes ? The American Magazine
.

And why should that be different?

 

[PoliticalChic]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

OK...now that is an attempt at rebuttal!

"the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.."

Perhaps you know better than I....that may or may not be the case.

In any event, do you deny that a significant portion of what the federal government labels as 'the poor' are lazy, as defined by Ms. Parker?


You then attempt to obfuscate....but, if we stipulate that there are 'lazy poor,' as defined, in every group,....well, then you're right back at square one.
And, that's appropriate, as you are one square.


But....I am heartened to find that I have been able to educate you to, at least, to the level of an attempted logical response.

And, you'll be overjoyed to learn that you are following the instructions of another Asian:


"The longest journey starts with a single step"-Lao-tzu.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you could read you would have seen in the post above I referred to the 'anti-welfare state'.

Since you just said "...welfare... not necessarily carried out by government"

you in fact defined yourself as exactly the kind of person I was referring to.

Now,

try addressing the questions posed above.

Or, answer this:

Is free healthcare given to poor/low income Americans a redistribution of wealth? Should it thus be ended entirely,

since you profess to believe that the government has no business redistributing wealth?

State not federal.


fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.


See article 1, section 8

lol, so you are FOR the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if New York State could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising NYS taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

lol. you're lying.

I am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

And, I never lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

State not federal.


fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.


See article 1, section 8

lol, so you are FOR the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if New York State could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising NYS taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

lol. you're lying.

I am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

And, I never lie.

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. "
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes ? The American Magazine
.

And why should that be different?

What mistakes you make when, in your uneducated and thoughtless manner, you toss out some jumble of words as though you have made some profound point.

In reality, you regularly jam both of your feed in your mouth.

This is a case in point.




I will now provide the view of folks who have actually researched the question, and their conclusion:

Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.”
Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”


Destroyed, so many of your fondest and most firmly held views!




If you had the ability, I would hope that you would attempt to redeem yourself with a well researched, sourced, and cohesive OP....as I regularly do....to defend progressive taxation.


Your intellectual elisions leave you free to simply wander off....

Too bad....it would have been a good battle.

 

[poet]

state not federal.


Fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
A. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.


See article 1, section 8

lol, so you are for the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if new york state could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising nys taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

Lol. You're lying.

i am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

and, i never lie.

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol, so you are FOR the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if New York State could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising NYS taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

lol. you're lying.

I am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

And, I never lie.

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

OK...now that is an attempt at rebuttal!

"the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.."

Perhaps you know better than I....that may or may not be the case.

In any event, do you deny that a significant portion of what the federal government labels as 'the poor' are lazy, as defined by Ms. Parker?


You then attempt to obfuscate....but, if we stipulate that there are 'lazy poor,' as defined, in every group,....well, then you're right back at square one.
And, that's appropriate, as you are one square.


But....I am heartened to find that I have been able to educate you to, at least, to the level of an attempted logical response.

And, you'll be overjoyed to learn that you are following the instructions of another Asian:


"The longest journey starts with a single step"-Lao-tzu.

You're forgetting how you defined the Poor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol, so you are for the government redistribution of wealth, but your only actual dispute is which government does it?

So if new york state could get all its federal tax revenue back that currently goes to federal programs for the poor,

you would support raising nys taxes a proportionate amount and using all that revenue to replace the lost federal programs with state programs?

Lol. You're lying.

i am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

and, i never lie.

lol

OK....I can see where you might construe this as a lie:

"Perhaps you know better than I..."


It is bizarre to consider that....but I was merely attempting to be polite.

Pearls before swine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

since "the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.....let's talk about the corrupt, criminal, and lazy Asians.

OK...now that is an attempt at rebuttal!

"the lazy poor" is "code" for blacks.."

Perhaps you know better than I....that may or may not be the case.

In any event, do you deny that a significant portion of what the federal government labels as 'the poor' are lazy, as defined by Ms. Parker?


You then attempt to obfuscate....but, if we stipulate that there are 'lazy poor,' as defined, in every group,....well, then you're right back at square one.
And, that's appropriate, as you are one square.


But....I am heartened to find that I have been able to educate you to, at least, to the level of an attempted logical response.

And, you'll be overjoyed to learn that you are following the instructions of another Asian:


"The longest journey starts with a single step"-Lao-tzu.

You're forgetting how you defined the Poor.

How so?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am for the residents of each state determining their destiny with respect to any endeavors not listed in article 1, section 8.

I am for observing the law of the land.

And, I never lie.

So you have no personal opinion on whether or not the government of New York State should be redistributing wealth.

When time came for a vote, I would decide, and abide by the decision of the voters.


The real question is why folks like you are willing to allow judges to alter the Constitution.

Why don't we just apply your reasoning above, i.e., that judges are where they are because of decisions by the voters,

and thus, we should abide by them.

And btw, why are you complaining so much about the redistribution of wealth while you're incapable of clearly stating which redistributions of wealth you would end?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. "
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes ? The American Magazine
.

And why should that be different?

What mistakes you make when, in your uneducated and thoughtless manner, you toss out some jumble of words as though you have made some profound point.

In reality, you regularly jam both of your feed in your mouth.

This is a case in point.

I'm putting my foot in my mouth by asking you your personal opinion on progressive taxation?

I take it you don't have then a personal opinion on progressive taxation.