THIS is "oppression" and "discrimination."

[RjThoughts]

Just because I haven't studied economics doesn't mean I don't read dickhead. I have read over a thousand books all of which are history and science. I personally know families that are on thier third generation of welfare dumbass I've seen it first hand. To deny that it happens just shows your ignorance. And for the record if you ever spoke that way to my face I'd kick your fucking ass right up around your shoulders. If you can't speak civily to me then fuck you cocksucker I'll speak the same way to you. You are one rude motherfucker.

I'm the rude one? You hijacked this thread to put forth your idealogy!! I've read thousands of books, too. I've read up on science and history, hell I was going to be an historian before computers caught me.

I'm the rude one? You say you've read history books yet say Reagan was the reason for the Soviet Union's downfall.

I'm the rude one? You can't go two minutes without spewing the venomous vitriol Neo-Cons say 24/7!

Oh, you know a family that's been on welfare for 3 generations. What have you done to help them to get off of it? Offer to help the grandchildren become educated? Help them find entry level jobs?

 

[teknight]

Just because I haven't studied economics doesn't mean I don't read dickhead. I have read over a thousand books all of which are history and science. I personally know families that are on thier third generation of welfare dumbass I've seen it first hand. To deny that it happens just shows your ignorance. And for the record if you ever spoke that way to my face I'd kick your fucking ass right up around your shoulders. If you can't speak civily to me then fuck you cocksucker I'll speak the same way to you. You are one rude motherfucker.

Yeah, but the fact that you can think of a few examples of welfare generations merely shows your own bias. It is not indicative of any trend. Guess you've not read up on stats and data analysis? To hold those as the basis for your judgement...well, that speaks of your own ignorance.

A better argument would use sources like this one. Or this one. They give the definition of intergenerational social mobility, as well as how it's been doing in the US.

 

[JNaylor]

I'm the rude one? You hijacked this thread to put forth your idealogy!! I've read thousands of books, too. I've read up on science and history, hell I was going to be an historian before computers caught me.

I'm the rude one? You say you've read history books yet say Reagan was the reason for the Soviet Union's downfall.

I'm the rude one? You can't go two minutes without spewing the venomous vitriol Neo-Cons say 24/7!

Oh, you know a family that's been on welfare for 3 generations. What have you done to help them to get off of it? Offer to help the grandchildren become educated? Help them find entry level jobs?

If you don't think Reagen brought down the soviet union I question what books your reading. You don't even have to read about it you were alive when it happened and you still deny it. Yes he had help from Margaret Thatcher and the Pope and others but if he hadn't escelated the arms race to the point that they became bankrupt and threatened them with his so called star wars program they would not have fallen. And yes you are the rude one. You can't write a sentenance without implying I'm some kind of idiot or resorting to some name calling. I have tried to make my points but haven't called anyone anything or implied that they were stupid because they disagree with me. I thought I could learn something about why liberals believe what they belive but all I see is beligerence. I don't see the need to look any further.

 

[teknight]

If you don't think Reagen brought down the soviet union I question what books your reading. You don't even have to read about it you were alive when it happened and you still deny it. Yes he had help from Margaret Thatcher and the Pope and others but if he hadn't escelated the arms race to the point that they became bankrupt and threatened them with his so called star wars program they would not have fallen. And yes you are the rude one. You can't write a sentenance without implying I'm some kind of idiot or resorting to some name calling. I have tried to make my points but haven't called anyone anything or implied that they were stupid because they disagree with me. I thought I could learn something about why liberals believe what they belive but all I see is beligerence. I don't see the need to look any further.

Let's see... Eastern Europe fell before the USSR...I don't recall Reagan's spending impacting the actions of the Romanians* (for example) that went out into the streets to revolt against Ceausescu.

The USSR collapsed from its own hubris and stupidity, really. Reagan's ramping up of spending wouldn't have affected a strong economy and society...but, hey, if you need your hero, go for the TV star, sure. Ignore the lives of millions of people who had more to do with the USSR's day to day living and dying than the president of the US.


*I was there. I'm Romanian. What do I know?

 

[JNaylor]

Yeah, but the fact that you can think of a few examples of welfare generations merely shows your own bias. It is not indicative of any trend. Guess you've not read up on stats and data analysis? To hold those as the basis for your judgement...well, that speaks of your own ignorance.

A better argument would use sources like this one. Or this one. They give the definition of intergenerational social mobility, as well as how it's been doing in the US.

No I don't read up on stats or data analysis, I spend my time making money not looking up charts on the internet. look around at our economy Mr. Charts and graphs, you don't need to do a lot of data analysis to see what we are doing is not working. I could spend three days giving you examples of welfare abuse along with disability abuse and social security abuse and unemployment abuse, medicare and medicaid abuse, but it wouldn't matter.

 

[JNaylor]

Let's see... Eastern Europe fell before the USSR...I don't recall Reagan's spending impacting the actions of the Romanians* (for example) that went out into the streets to revolt against Ceausescu.

The USSR collapsed from its own hubris and stupidity, really. Reagan's ramping up of spending wouldn't have affected a strong economy and society...but, hey, if you need your hero, go for the TV star, sure. Ignore the lives of millions of people who had more to do with the USSR's day to day living and dying than the president of the US.


*I was there. I'm Romanian. What do I know?

Well ok lets accept your argument, if your were there you probably do know more than I do, then the reason it collapsed was because communism doesn't work wouldn't you agree? Then why are you an advocate for communist\socialist policies here?

 

[teknight]

No I don't read up on stats or data analysis, I spend my time making money not looking up charts on the internet. look around at our economy Mr. Charts and graphs, you don't need to do a lot of data analysis to see what we are doing is not working. I could spend three days giving you examples of welfare abuse along with disability abuse and social security abuse and unemployment abuse, medicare and medicaid abuse, but it wouldn't matter.

Right. Data should never inform public policy. Check.
And, you're right. The individual abuses you'd describe are but a drop in the bucket on the list of problems plaguing your country now (and by far not the most significant factor), so, yes, I would ignore them, saying they're not big enough to matter.

How would you fix the economy, given a magic lamp?

 

[teknight]

Well ok lets accept your argument, if your were there you probably do know more than I do, then the reason it collapsed was because communism doesn't work wouldn't you agree? Then why are you an advocate for communist\socialist policies here?

Way to be driven by the narrative. You guys are far from communism. You guys are far from socialism too, despite your fears of what socialized medicine will do. In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the OECD does do the welfare state thing rather well.

Communism in the US? You're funny. You don't know what communism is, man.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I have tried to make my points but haven't called anyone anything or implied that they were stupid because they disagree with me. I thought I could learn something about why liberals believe what they belive but all I see is beligerence. I don't see the need to look any further.

REALLY???

Do I need to cut & paste links to the innumerable times you've called me things?

Just stop with the holier than thou shtick.

 

[JNaylor]

Way to be driven by the narrative. You guys are far from communism. You guys are far from socialism too, despite your fears of what socialized medicine will do. In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the OECD does do the welfare state thing rather well.

Communism in the US? You're funny. You don't know what communism is, man.

Well I've never lived it like you have thats for sure and I know we are not there yet but we are definatley sliding in that direction and a welfare state is exactly where were heading. Look at where we are today compared to where we were 50 years ago and I don't know how you can deny it.

 

[JNaylor]

REALLY???

Do I need to cut & paste links to the innumerable times you've called me things?

Just stop with the holier than thou shtick.

yeah but you started it and you deserved it

 

[teknight]

Well I've never lived it like you have thats for sure and I know we are not there yet but we are definatley sliding in that direction and a welfare state is exactly where were heading. Look at where we are today compared to where we were 50 years ago and I don't know how you can deny it.

Alright. Fine. Let's compare now vs 50 years ago. 1960, then?
What would you like to compare, exactly? Let's look at some of those pointless, useless facts and figures, shall we?

I will start off with saying it's no longer the cold war, and that's a positive. Let's see: civil rights. Those are good. Less discrimination. That's good. The internet. That's good.
But, I'm sidetracking a bit. What'd you like to compare?

 

[teknight]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
And a description, from here:

Graph of United States income distribution from 1947 through 2007 inclusive, normalized to 2007 dollars. The data source is "Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1947 to 2007", U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, as found at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01AR.html

 

[Safe_Bet]

yeah but you started it and you deserved it

So in other words, you are saying your prior statement was incorrect, you know it and you STILL aren't willing to admit it.

Quelle surprise, dude!

 

[JNaylor]

Right. Data should never inform public policy. Check.
And, you're right. The individual abuses you'd describe are but a drop in the bucket on the list of problems plaguing your country now (and by far not the most significant factor), so, yes, I would ignore them, saying they're not big enough to matter.

How would you fix the economy, given a magic lamp?

Well you seem to be well informed what do you see is the bigest problem facing our country?

How would I fix the economy? I wouldn't be doing what they are doing now. You cannot spend your way to prosperity. I'd keep taxes at their current levels and cut spending and let the free market work. The government is mandating that we build all of these electric cars and I think GM only sold about 200 of the new Volts so far. It costs about a billion dollars to bring a new vehicle to market and selling 200 cars is not going to allow them to recoup thier costs.

 

[JNaylor]

Alright. Fine. Let's compare now vs 50 years ago. 1960, then?
What would you like to compare, exactly? Let's look at some of those pointless, useless facts and figures, shall we?

I will start off with saying it's no longer the cold war, and that's a positive. Let's see: civil rights. Those are good. Less discrimination. That's good. The internet. That's good.
But, I'm sidetracking a bit. What'd you like to compare?

Theres only one stat I would like to see. How many people depended on the government for thier income in 1960 compared to today?

 

[JNaylor]

So in other words, you are saying your prior statement was incorrect, you know it and you STILL aren't willing to admit it.

Quelle surprise, dude!

Ooooohh you got me..damn. Your so smart and you win every argument..You never answered any of my questions so until you do go away.

 

[girlsmiley]

So in other words, you are saying your prior statement was incorrect, you know it and you STILL aren't willing to admit it.

Quelle surprise, dude!

See how angry he got at the other dude?

Internet tough guy!

 

[teknight]

Well you seem to be well informed what do you see is the bigest problem facing our country?

How would I fix the economy? I wouldn't be doing what they are doing now. You cannot spend your way to prosperity. I'd keep taxes at their current levels and cut spending and let the free market work. The government is mandating that we build all of these electric cars and I think GM only sold about 200 of the new Volts so far. It costs about a billion dollars to bring a new vehicle to market and selling 200 cars is not going to allow them to recoup thier costs.

The deficit is your biggest problem. The end. The way to fix it? Up taxes and decrease social spending, whilst also cutting military spending. But that's a quick back of the napkin sort of calculation, ignoring a ton of other factors that I can't speak to intelligently right now....(although, cutting military spending straight up would have other consequences on the economy)...

What I would do- I'd raise the age at which you start getting social security..to 75 maybe? (That's a guesstimate, ignoring a bunch of demographic factors that I'm not aware of right now).

 

[JNaylor]

See how angry he got at the other dude?

Internet tough guy!

Tough in real life too, broken a lot of peoples faces over the years and had a good time doing it.

 

[girlsmiley]

Tough in real life too, broken a lot of peoples faces over the years and had a good time doing it.

I've petted a goat.

 

[JNaylor]

The deficit is your biggest problem. The end. The way to fix it? Up taxes and decrease social spending, whilst also cutting military spending. But that's a quick back of the napkin sort of calculation, ignoring a ton of other factors that I can't speak to intelligently right now....(although, cutting military spending straight up would have other consequences on the economy)...

What I would do- I'd raise the age at which you start getting social security..to 75 maybe? (That's a guesstimate, ignoring a bunch of demographic factors that I'm not aware of right now).

I would agree with you on that. I would in addition cut social spending. If someone genuinley needs welfare then I want them to have it. If they are genuinley hurt and disabled I want them to get disability. But if they are faking a back injury to get disability for the rest of their life then I'm against that and if your a young man capable of working and the economy is such that jobs are available then I think you should be working. Thats all I'm saying. I am not against raising taxes if everyone pays something. If your going to raise them for the rich then the 50% of the people that pay zero should pay soemthing. I'm not saying tax them to death but even if they paid 3-5% its better than nothing and its not unfai since they recieve the majority of the benefits that the taxes provide.

 

[JNaylor]

I've petted a goat.

I'm not messing with you then

 

[teknight]

Your right about the 70's. The top tax rate was something like 79%. Imagine making $1,000.00 and having the government taking $790.00 from it leaving you with $210.00.

As for your example here: it's horrible, but doesn't align itself with economic facts (the stuff that economics teaches you). Yes, for a person making $1000, taking 790 is horrible...however, that's not the same as as taking $790,000.00 out of a million dollars. The decreasing marginal utility of dollars (fuck, never thought I'd get to use that one EVER!) tells you that you get less satisfaction from each additional dollar bill as they pile on. Let me put it another way: The millionaire doesn't buy apples at the millionaire store for $1500 dollars/lb. In terms of meeting their needs (granted, it shouldn't be left up to others to decide what your needs are, but, at the same time, a person can live QUITE well on $200,000.00/ year) the millionaire will live quite well, even losing $790,000.00 out of their income in taxes.
It's not a linear relationship, so your example, isn't fair. Taxing them at a higher rate isn't exactly unfair either.

 

[Safe_Bet]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
And a description, from here:

Actually teknight, as disgusting as that chart might be it is not accurate. What ISN'T shown as income is anything that an employer gives an individual such as use of a vehicle or company jet, stock awards & options and bonus, which is where the CEOs of the world get their true wealth. A Fortune 500 CEO might "only" make $1 million a year in income, but will receive $10 million in total remuneration, as an example.

Your charts don't reflect that so it's much, much worse.

The real bottom line is that the upper 20 percentile controls 97% of all wealth in this country, yet only pays 87% of the taxes.

So JNaylor can scream and rant all he wants, but he can't dispute the actual facts.