Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Kristian Views
522 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
@oldboychoi
6641 Followers





vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Look, people like Steve Jobs and Wozniak wanted to do great things.
Money motivates people who are shallow -- and they don't need to innovate to get money. They can be lawyers, managers, commission sales people. What does a Hedge Fund Manger create beyond bits of paper? And MBA does nothing but look for loopholes.
I've always been motivated to be creative and make something unique - I often had to be reminded to send in an invoice.
MOST people want to make friends and do something worth doing -- we NEED MONEY, but it isn't what motivates a good doctor, or a scientist.
There are plenty of smart people who are money motivated -- but there are plenty of innovators who died poor. The people who got the money had the connections and desire for money -- and any talent related to that is purely accidental. There are millions of talented people in the US.
MustardTigersJan 25, 2012
If doctors, engineers, physicists, etc. knew that they were only ever going to make $20,000 a year and wrack up massive student loans, do you really believe that (most) would bust their asses for 4 to 8 years to do so?
Money isn't necessarily a motivator for these people while doing their job, but for many it is a determining factor when deciding what career path they may want to take.
mcfriendlyJan 25, 2012
So which of these two groups would you want to serve your needs?
reebee52Jan 26, 2012
Doesn't matter, so long as they do a good job. Whether it's to make me better, or to keep a high standard to attract more patient/customers, I don't really care.
PickledsoulJan 26, 2012
i actually want to become a doctor because of the fact that it's a valuable skill, highly praised, and always in need, and i wish i had a doctor when i needed one.
i doubt I'll see lots of money in the near future, but i can sure as hell make sure i can keep myself patched up until it rolls in.
docterrorJan 26, 2012
Believe it or not that's actually already happening with doctors, atleast it is for family practitioners. The average pay and the cost of running a practice are at the point where you can barely make a living doing it. Unless it changes there will be a severe shortage in a few years.
sonammillerJan 26, 2012
Of course not. That would be below the US poverty line ($22,350). They could barely survive, let alone pay their loans off. I'm not sure what your point is.
dfdubJan 26, 2012
@ vitriolandangst - Intentions are spoken through actions. Although every doctor and scientist will SAY what you said... I don't see many doctors forgiving their clients' bills...
leodinJan 25, 2012
The biggest lie is that they favor small government, fiscal responsibly, and the free market. It is government interference in the free market at the behest of large corporations that helps maintain income inequality. SOPA should have been an eye-opener to the average liberal who believes that regulation is good. It was clearly a case of regulation being pushed by large corporations to shut small businesses down.
You see, regulations do not hut large corporations, contrary to popular belief, they hut small businesses who cannot afford the extra expenses. Thus, large corporations use regulation as a method of destroying potential competition and ensuring what basically amounts to monopolies, giving them the freedom to do whatever the hell they want.
I may sound confused switching from attacking conservatives to attacking liberals, but make no mistake, both sides are trying to f**k us over.
seanstuartJan 25, 2012
The rich are capitalists, except when they're communists.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
I cal them GOP "ers........Get Our Profits....Damn the middle class, full speed ahead!
stubearJan 25, 2012
No, regulations do NOT hurt small businesses. Letting corporations ignore regulations is what hurts small businesses. If large corporations had to follow the same rules as everyone else their competitive advantage would be much less, and in fact I'd argue that their size will ultimately hurt them because smaller companies can be more nimble.
We don't need fewer regulations, we need to restore the regulations large corporations have legislated out and start enforcing corporate law, revoking corporate charters for companies like BP who continue to willfully ignore regulations at the cost of human life and the environment.
We also need to amend the Constitution to clearly state that Corporations are NOT people and are in fact a legal structure allowed to exist by the will of the citizens of the U.S. We need federal corporate charters so companies can no longer shop around for friendly states like Delaware who get to set corporate law for the entire country, and in some cases the world.
After all this is done, we need to stop the lobbying and bribery of our elected officials. I'd like to see a few members of congress see a little time in federal prison but I'll settle for rules that are actually enforceable and allow the people to have more say in the pay, benefits, and ethical standard with which we expect our elected representatives to live and work by.
strenothJan 25, 2012
The bit about corporations being not people is possibly the single most important thing you said there. That protection, originally intended to simplify things like who owns the land a company purchases and such, and so it's the company that pays, not the owner, if a worker gets injured on the job, has been used and abused to avoid legal consequences of deliberate actions. This needs to end.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Regulations CAN both hinder and protect smaller corporations.
MOST regulations are not sponsored by well meaning, intrusive Liberals, but by the Big Multinational corporations.
Things like Sarbanes-Oxley do NOTHING to protect consumers, but the create mounds of reporting work that puts a BARRIER TO ENTRY for all but the largest, most bureaucratically talented corporations.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
fail. overreaching regs can hurt small biz and often do. their insurance goes up due to new regs and then they have to cut employees to make a profit and pay the bills on time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stubearJan 26, 2012
The harm done to small businesses isn't from regulations, it;s from small businesses playing by the rules while larger corporations use their political clout to skirt and even ignore completely the rules everyone else has to play by. Force large corporations to play by the same rules and the playing field will be level with any regulations having the same effect on businesses regardless of size.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
The MAIN problem I have with the hard core Right is that they are disingenuous about their intentions. This might be a side-effect of evangelical training or religious indoctrination; so say one thing when you mean another.
I noticed this in Southern Bells when I was growing up. The girl who slept around the most, would start off with; "I'm not that kind of girl." Then she'd drop hints about; "I'll pray for you!" Guys she got drunk with in the back seat of a car would be told; "Let's meet up at church tomorrow." Church of course would be missed.
I never got any play with Souther Bells, because I couldn't quite say; "I'll love you FOREVER" on the first date after some cherry schnapps. What I didn't realize, is that I needed to care enough to LIE TO HER.
So she's imprinted on guys with fake smiles and roving hands who tell her "it's forever" and that means "until my hard on fades tonight." With Viagra now, the commitment might be longer -- but the Truthiness remains the same.
>> War is peace. Economic responsibility is making sure the poor starves. White people are not on government assistance. Entitlements are things that you aren't entitled to. "I'm not a racist" means all problems on the planet are due to people who are not like me -- no offense.
When the Republican candidates put their hands on their hearts, and glowingly talk of their patriotism, they really want to f**k America over, and not in the romantic; "I'll lubricate your ass first" kind of way, but in the bangos playing, Warren Beatty, pine bark down your pants kind of way.
ThinkForYourselfJan 26, 2012
You have no idea what the average conservative thinks trust me because you are way off. If you are talking about "conservative" politicians they are a completely different animal and don't lump us in with them. The only conclusion that should be drawn from your little story is that everyone likes sex but some people are afraid to admit it,
People need to stop with the hate and make a real effort to understand where their conservative/liberal brothers and sisters (not politicians) are coming from because we all want the same basic things.
vitriolandangstJan 27, 2012
I might say that about Liberals and the Democrats in Congress not being in step -- but I have to disagree about what "average Conservatives think." I've talked to TOO many to think that this craziness is an accident or a Washington fluke. Gingrich got cheers in South Carolina, and he'd get cheers in my state as well (where he is from).
Average Conservatives STILL think that lowering taxes creates jobs and increases investments. The THINK that Socialism did NOT help our Economy (Unions and Public Works projects and HIGH taxes on wealth) but that the War helped us after WW II.
I agree that we need to "stop the hate." But I don't know if it's been REAL Conservatives or people posing as them -- but I got a LOT of hate since 2001 when SOMEONE came out of the closet and started sounding like Archie Bunker.
You might disagree with your fellow Republicans and maybe YOU don't know what they think. You might actually be more in line with the Democrats in congress and not even know it.
I consider the Democrats in congress to be the Republicans. Obama is far to the right of Nixon on almost any scale you could use. Nixon created a lot of Domestic protection services like the EPA and FDA, which up until 10 years ago did their jobs.
Nixon's tax level and policies would be called "a Socialist Extremist" by anyone with a microphone in Republican circles today.
ThinkForYourselfJan 27, 2012
I consider myself conservative because i believe in strong communities and limited FEDERAL government. History clearly shows us the fate of true socialism and the horrors of national governments with too much power.
That said, I have a lot of conservative friends and liberal ones as well. I have made quite a little project out of trying to understand why the 2 have such a hard time understanding each other. We use different language and different approaches to solve a problem but I have come to the conclusion that 90% of the time we want to achieve the same goals.
I hate seeing conservatives bashing liberals and vice versa. The media loves to keep us at each others throats because that hate sells articles. It also keeps us bickering instead of focusing on the greedy politicians and special interests who are really to blame.
If I ever start to get angry about something someone says I remind myself that they are most likely a kind and concerned person who loves their country no matter their dem. rep. affiliation. We just need to communicate better and make more of an effort to understand what is being conveyed.
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
Regulations are good things, if they work to prevent unfair competition and exploitative behavior such as pollution, profiteering, unfair wage compensation.
If regulation is used as a political tool (politically motivated) then it is wrong and a distraction. This is on of the main reasons republicans attack regulation so much.
Effective regulation serves a purpose, to check business and should enacted with thought and reason. We need well thought out, checks and balances.
Small business should be given breaks to encourage growth which don't affect competing with other. New businesses should also have growth and survival incentives which help them compete fairly, yet survive based on merit.
I complete agree with both sides having serious incentives to preserve the status quo. I find my political spectrum being severely altered by the partisan behavior and shift in ideology that happens.
We seriously need to depolarize politics. The political tug-of-war is a distraction from good decision making.
We need to understand how these things work, Instead of attacking a polarized direction.
I think competition and cooperation, checks and balances, effective regulation are good things that make a healthy system.
We all need to get past political distraction to see clearly together as much as possible.
We need to talk a heck of all lot more, with each other, about understanding issues clearly. We need to focus on correct decision making and what we can agree on on how to get their together, instead of wasting time, distracted and focused on our disagreements. It is possible to get on the same page as Americans.
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
If you dig me down, please explain why. Thank you.
vitriolandangstJan 27, 2012
I dugg you up, or would you call that "threw some dirt in the hole" -- since of course this is DIGG.
"Digging you" used to be a term that someone thought you were cool.
To "dig" is to pull dirt out of a hole. Dig down is redundant, and well, you cannot dig "up". Did the creators of Digg really think this metaphor out before they started using it?
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
You are correct. I should have said 'if you digg my comment down please explain why.'
Or perhaps bury my comment is a more accurate term?
novenatorJan 25, 2012Submitter
We on the left know that too many regulations can be detrimental to small business folks who don't have the time, money, or resources to deal with a lot of it. I'm talking real small businesses here, 20 employees at the very most, not those 500-employee "small businesses". The problem however is that without any real regulation, the medium fish eat all the little fish, and the big fish eat all the medium fish and all we're left with is a corporatocracy that s**ts on freedom.
The key is to find a balance of regulations and the most effective ones to keep the playing field fair and opportunity alive.
superkendallJan 25, 2012
Wrong. Most regulations are DESIGNED to hep the corporatocracy fend off any smaller competitors. That is exactly what has been accomplished.
novenatorJan 26, 2012Submitter
Yeah, just like that pesky Glass-Steagall Act you fiscal conservatives finally got rid of in the 90s, and the big business friendly Clinton signed. That damn regulation was *really* hampering smaller competitors, and there were NO SIDE EFFECTS WHAT SO EVER from repealing it, especially the Great Recession.
bobcat7407Jan 26, 2012
So do 84% of Senate Democrats and 75% of House Democrats fit in to this supposed "fiscal conservative" definition of yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png
adaguyJan 26, 2012
If you bribe em' enough, they'll all vote however you want.
vitriolandangstJan 27, 2012
Actually, saying that 84% of House Democrats might as well be Republicans is pretty accurate.
84% of House Republicans might as well be in the looney bit.
bobcat7407Jan 27, 2012
@vitriol
Sure, just move the goal posts wherever you want. Does that somehow make those Democrats fit the moving definition of "fiscal conservative" that Novenator used?
superkendallJan 25, 2012
They do so way more than the Democrats. And the Tea Party is holding Republican feet to the fire on this. Where is anyone calling out Democrats for not supporting small government?
Crickets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leodinJan 25, 2012
What the f**k retarded-ass bulls**t is that? The goal of Democrats isn't small government, so why on f**king Earth would I call them out for not being small government!? If you weren't dropped on your head as a baby, you really should have been, it might have actually helped your situation. Christ, next you'll be getting upset at the KKK for not promoting diversity. I'm all for small government, but Republicans are very different from Democrats - Democrats say more government is the solution, and they push for more government. Republicans say we need less government, but constantly push for more. In other words, not only do they support big government, but they f**king lie by saying they want small government.
zulshah06Feb 6, 2012
basically..the rich people are powerful..like a capitalists
cheer:
http://airplanesimulatorsim.blogspot.com/.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
They narrowed it down to only 5 --- impressive!
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Really! Here are 15.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
miklkitJan 25, 2012
And here are another 9.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/149265/the_9_biggest_conservative_lies_about_taxes_and_public_spending/?page=entire
novenatorJan 25, 2012Submitter
Gotta love how you offer additional data without commentary and the cons desperately try to bury you to hide the truth!
pablosanchez495Jan 25, 2012
Go get a job
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
See, now you are putting the car before the horse.
If someone wants us to stop, they are going to have to shove a 7 figure income job down our throats. With a company car -- and nothing less than a SAAB or Mercedes -- not that wanna-be Lexus crap.
You want someone on your side complaining about Big Gov taxes -- MAKE THEM A MILLIONAIRE! Go ahead, I dare you.
ageofmasteryJan 25, 2012
How did they narrow it down to just 5?
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Beat me to it. Had to make coffee and THEN post.
Can I at least say "First!" ???
corydorningJan 25, 2012
except you weren't first. you were second.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
OK. I'm FIRST! to say 'Captain Obvious.'
V&A Rule #7, the longer and the sillier blog gets, the more likely someone is to say something that demands the label; "Captain Obvious."
No offense, but you might think someone was being ironic if they just mentioned they got beat on posting a quip.... just keep this in a safe place until the situation arises again.
2nd!
>> OK, now that was late.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
i got the irony...i was being a wise ass. nothing more nothing less.
on a side note though, i'll happily give you 2nd. Job well done. :)
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Cory,
YOUR irony was a bit less obvious than MY irony.
But I guess there is no law against being a wise ass to a wise ass. Touché.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
i know you are but what am i?
i'm rubber, you're glue?
(i think we are both ironic)
icwydJan 25, 2012
They really just say anything and just hope one of them stick and then go with that.
CaptainobliviousJan 25, 2012
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me
misterbadideaJan 25, 2012
Um, not really relevant.
blanchebeechamJan 25, 2012
I think "culture of poverty" is a social disease that has symptoms including income inequality. The reasoning offered to rationalize income inequality seems to be very similar in construct to those offered to rationalize all symptoms like poor education which of course supports poverty and income inequality and thus, in the mind of those that support a "culture of poverty" mindset, proves their base premise. It is a circular logic that mind-numbing.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
The 99% must have a huge tuiirnout in the Presidential election forthe party of the people, the DEMOCRATS, Both houses need to be a clean Democratic sweep.Let'stake OUR COUNTRY back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
skyislandJan 28, 2012
Yellow dog Democrats need to be dislodged and the vetting process needs the keen eye of people skilled yet who try to do no harm.. The scene politically is poisoned by the Supreme Court Citizens United decision but it goes deeper still.
There are hoards of vipers adept at manipulation of thought and getting power..
The average person in the US is influenced by Big Media and a corrupt system.
60 days before election, early voting - Not - hoards of media bombardment ads.
novenatorJan 25, 2012Submitter
This list is just the tip of the iceberg. Conservatives (mainly Republicans) lie about just about everything in the economic sphere
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
The one that I think ALL of us fell prey to for a while is that the "war stimulated the FDR economy."
When I looked into it -- it turns out that the states that had the most military funding (like for training camps), had economies that had the most sluggish growth. After about 2 years of the war, the economic activity stimulated by the effort began to slow the economy -- which should be obvious for the simple reason that spending to blow up bridges, doesn't have a positive feedback into the economy like building a bridge.
One sherman tank vs. 50 automobiles. One navy cruiser vs perhaps a dozen schools. The fuel used by one Destroyer in a week is equivalent to the entire energy usage of a city of 200,000 for a year.
It kind of sickens me that I STILL have to argue with Republicans about our wars around the world based on their negative economic impacts and how "lowering the price of Gas isn't a GOAL for the Oil industry you moron" -- it's hard to keep it respectful, because I'm dealing with people who are OK with sweatshops and kids mutated by depleted Uranium because they think it preserves their comfortable way of life.
You cannot tell some Americans we don't do things because they are WRONG -- you also have to go the distance by telling them they are STUPID, BAD FOR BUSINESS, and put a little disclaimer at the bottom; "also considered evil in most places -- not including Texas and South Carolina."
omgscienceJan 25, 2012
It's not wise to throw stones when you live in a glass house. Both parties are owned by corporate interests and yet Americans keep them in power...
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
by voting for the lesser of two evils.
Yes, the Dems suck, the Repugs suck harder, and well, it's hard to think anymore since I just flashed on Gingrich's double chin and kisser -- I think I'm going to lose some sugar free angel food cake right now,...
novenatorJan 25, 2012Submitter
The Democratic Party has some problems. I readily admit that, but they pale by comparison to the Republicans, who are full blown corporate whores.
We have a problem with campaign finance: who opposes reform? Conservatives (mostly Republicans)
We have a problem with corporations taking over our lives and causing massive wealth inequity: who opposes reform? Conservatives (mostly Republicans)
We have a problem with the financial sector manipulating things for profit: who opposes reform? Conservatives (mostly Republicans)
We have a problem with the national deb: who created most of it? Conservatives (mostly Republicans)
I know it's easy to say "both sides are the same" but it simply isn't true dude.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Jan 25, 2012
the Democratic party is the problem
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
Novenator. I agree completely.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
We have a problem with the GOPers trying to invalidate voters in numerous states. We have a problem with job outsourcing.We have a problem with Unions who accorded the workers
decent wageand benefits beingshut down. We have a problem. with the Republican stand off on bills. We have a problem with the Congressional Tea Partyers who owe their votes to coporations, ie Koch brothers.
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
I think it's the other way around. I think most corporations are owned by government interests.
Government sets the rules.
Government creates exceptions to the rules...provided they receive enough money to make it worth their while.
Government enforces the rules.
From what I can tell, senators and congressmen put forth bills just so lobbyists will pay them off to kill it or continue -- depending on his lobby kicks in the most money.
mikeymondaviJan 25, 2012
Keynes, is that you?
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
Their are many conservatives who think correctly, but are misled by the information and political spin by partisans. Conservatism is not a bad philosophy in itself as is Liberalism. Both have their extremes. It is important to understand the value of both points of view, and why people generally look in those directions.
I think their is a lot of value in all points of view.
Understanding why is so important to everybody.
We need to learn how to see things clearly.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
I disagree.
When I HEAR Obama speak , I hear things that are thoughtful -- his actions don't necessarily back them up.
When I listen to the Republican candidates -- I'm freaking out.
The philosophy of Conservatives is worsened when they FOLLOW THROUGH with their supply-side theories than when they don't.
rightfutureJan 26, 2012
The voice of moderate conservatives is mostly drowned out by the extremists and the religious right. Unfortunately all the candidates are (with some exception to Ron Paul) .
There are democratic conservatives and a whole spectrum of people who are conservatives with reason. Putting all conservatives together with these partisan hacks doesn't accomplish winning people to the realities of companies profiteering or unveiling political greed and cronyism. This is something we should all be able to agree upon.
Understanding people's point of view is vital if you want to see both the truth and the value in another's point of view.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
Obama is a moderate conservative.
rightfutureJan 26, 2012
yes he is :)
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Bulls**t.
A moderate conservative would not have signed the health care bill into law.
vitriolandangstJan 27, 2012
Well RightFuture -- it is definitely "drowned out" because you are about the only "reasonable conservative" I think who has been able to have a conversation I've seen in weeks.
Usually it's an absolutist mentality like; "Regulations are Liberal" "Taxes are bad." There is no nuance like; "32% is too high, but 29% is just right" -- you know, like Adults USED to talk 30 or 40 years ago.
rightfutureJan 29, 2012
Thank you for your compliment.
It is hard to find people who are willing to talk, and think for themselves as well.
Most people react like it is their favorite football team that they are defending.
I do tend to lean a little conservative, but I probably could be classified as more of an independent. I often defend other people's point of view because I really do understand some of the correctness of their position.
I try to look past spin and party views to understand the reality of the underlying issues. Motive is very important when it comes to following politics. I come from an engineering, programming, and business background and it is very important to me to understand the mechanics of how and why these things work.
It is not as much a matter of taste or tilt, or even being 'right' or wrong. It is about getting to the truth as best I can.
'Correctfuture' would probably have been a better handle for me as it is more accurate, I've had that handle for a long time, and it would be hard to change it..
I hope we get a chance to talk some more. Maybe we can learn something from each other. I will try to look out for your diggs and conversations.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
The President is at the mercy of the Congress and senate/ His executive powers have limits.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
Newt called Obama the food stamp president, false....George W Bush had more on ffod stamps than B.O. Fact check!
bobcat7407Jan 26, 2012
Source?
keeton1Jan 25, 2012
"For example, the U.S. slashed the top income tax rate by 35 percent and witnessed a large ten percent increase in its top 1% pre-tax income share". So basically they lowered the top 1% income tax rate(allowing them to keep 35% more ) and their pre-tax income only grew by 10% (meaning they invested it somehow to create only 10% more) . Who would have thougt that if you let somone keep 35% more of their money there by basically lowering what they are taxed on so it becomes pre-tax money (all income not taxed is pre-taxed) they might have more pre-tax money and be able to invest it and create more income.mainly the 10 % .
Did it really take a painstaking analysis by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva to figure this out.
strenothJan 25, 2012
Honestly, I'm for the elimination of all income tax, and replace it with sales tax that is not applied against critical things, such as rent, utilities, and groceries. Nor would it be applied against used goods (thus thrift centers would be tax free). If you have money to spend on luxuries, those are taxed. If you have very little money, you get to keep just about all of it for your critical needs.
Also, first time home-buyers would not be taxed on their first home. And no property tax at all, so once you own a home, it's in your family forever, unless you sell it. So yes, I'm saying no estate tax either, especially how having an estate tax can force a small family to sell off their family home just to pay the taxes on its value.
bersercJan 25, 2012
Depends on how much things are taxed. We want to encourage people to spend, not hoard their money. This is why taxes on investment income is less, to encourage more investment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skyislandJan 27, 2012
Increasing disorder is heat and principle of entropy or increasing disorder in a closed system unlike an open system such as the Amazon forest basin indicates that temps are rising because lies are like the bottle that keeps gasses in and allows sunlight in and heat to fail to escape.. As in a closed system, A closed system by our own hand and lies that don't get taken out by open air discussion based on logic on an operational free internet.
Lies affect politics and short circuit outcomes of democratic elections, they affect Earth and the overheat of systems and the rise of the threat war poses..
dissidentJan 26, 2012
strong dollar allows the corrupt parasites to gain even more wealth. Weak dollar is what we need.. discourages debt creation and encourages bringing jobs back because we then become competitive.
blindoggbooksJan 25, 2012
Does this mean Mitt, Newt and Sarah have been lying to us? That's so hard to believe because they only want to help the middle class...
charlotte_webJan 25, 2012
John Paulson is still responsible for the taxes on the $9 billion he earned, and he's still responsible to pay them at the tax rate in the year that he earned it, it's simply deferred.
kasha34Jan 25, 2012
When Barack holds up Warren Buffet's secretary as a sympathetic figure being abused...does it change anything to learn that she earns $200-$500,000?
Loki520Jan 26, 2012
she still pays more percentage wise than her billionaire boss...thats wrong no matter how you try to spin it.
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Only because capital gains is taxed at a different rate. It's also effectively taxed twice, once when the corporation makes the profit, and again when all the stock holders have to pay taxes when that profit is passed on to them.
Loki520Jan 26, 2012
what part about wrong no matter how you try to spin it was confusing?
Loki520Jan 26, 2012
how many corporations actually make a profit and pay taxes? with all the loopholes, not many. if they do, then riddle me this. is the corporation = stock holder? corporation is a person so it makes sense that they would pay tax on income and then the stock holder being a seperate person would pay tax on their income...right?
drmangrumJan 26, 2012
Quite a few corporations make a profit and pay taxes. Just because you're stupid and chose to supplant actual reality with your reality, that doesn't mean that 100% of corporations don't make a profit or pay taxes.
If what you're suggesting was true, then NOBODY would pay capital gains taxes. I would posit that you have *NO* idea what capital gains are and suckle at the teat of the progressive kool-aid man.
Loki520Jan 26, 2012
ooh...name calling. are you sensitive? i didn't say no corps pay taxes.. now did i? just because you chose to supplant what you think i said with what i actually said don't make you right...you've proven yourself to be just another mouth with s**t for brains....i don't need here about your fantasies at suckeling...your just another angry "conservative" that don't get laid because your mate thinks your a miserable s.o.b.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
This seemed to strike a nerve with some. Comment, please. I want to hear the socialist side of the argument.
TGRHvWGAFJan 26, 2012
The realist side of the argument is that you're a liar. You presented this story as if it actually happened - it didn't. You even went so far as to say that it happened at a "local" college. Considering how shot your integrity is at this point I'd say you've gotten far more thoughtful replies than you deserve. Stop making conclusions about reality based on the forwarded crap your retarded friends pile into your inbox. I won't excuse your lack of integrity just because that's the only way you can sway others to your point of view.
corydorningJan 26, 2012
you missed a comment earlier...i didn't "say" any of this. it's a common "story" floating around the interwebs.
TGRHvWGAFJan 26, 2012
Really? Your comment starts with the words "an economics professor at a local college". That phrase is specifically worded to make the underlying premise sound more authentic because it's from an economics professor, and it makes it sound like something that actually happened because ti reads as if you're writing about something that happened in your area that you have direct knowledge of.
If the story that you're telling has all the authenticity of a parable then fine - but say so. Otherwise at best you're repeating someone else's lie and at worst you're lying yourself.
And think about this in the meantime - if you didn't choose the wording and you just copied and pasted it, who do you suppose the person is who did choose that wording? And why exactly is it that they have to resort to authentic-sounding stories that are actually complete fabrications, that get circulated via chain emails in roder to advance their beliefs?
Speaking for myself, if my belief structure relied on a whisper campaign of fabricated stories circulated via forwarded emails (which smart people don't take seriously anyway) then I'd decide it's about time to reevaluate those beliefs.
corydorningJan 26, 2012
RAWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
I'm off to rethink my belief structure...good bye now.
:rolls:eyes:
TGRHvWGAFJan 26, 2012
Need me to forward you an email to help you out with that? I've got one here about a princess in Swaziland who's being forced to marry against her will.
And of course while you do your rethinking I, as an actual college instructor (part time mind you, I'm an engineer by day but when my schedule allows I teach night classes showing others how to do what I do and make what I make) will have a hearty laugh at your expense. Please never vote again.
Loki520Jan 26, 2012
well...you just got your ass handed to you. how embarassing.
corydorningJan 26, 2012
it has -19 and +17, for a -2 overall...and i got my ass handed to me? L. O. L.
I posted it for the sheer premise of the argument. I can come up with numerous flaws for the actual example itself. But the example as it is, holds true.
Looking at it from a monetary sense, i'll admit it isn't an apples to apples comparison because a grading scale is finite.
but well done on your comment. you provided a lot to the conversation.
Loki520Jan 27, 2012
17 mouth breathing knuckle draggers opinions count for nada....your deception provided absolute shyte to what your trying to pass off as a conversation...but well done to you all the same.
bluckabaughJan 25, 2012
FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: GET THIS BLACK KENYAN OUT OF OFFICE!
corydorningJan 25, 2012
lol...well played. granted I saw it on FB not via email. regardless, the premise remains the same.
charlotte_webJan 25, 2012
When all else fails, play the race card.
16x9Jan 25, 2012
You just cited the final fallback cry when playing to the GOP base.
bluckabaughJan 25, 2012
I will literally eat a hat if you can empirically show that the rich would simply stop trying if they had to pay the same tax rates that they were 20+ years ago.
Try, please, just try.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
If you take it all away, they wouldn't be rich. I don't disagree about paying a "fair" share, but a fair share equates to paying the same income tax rate for everyone...or do away with it in general. Give the American people control over their spending/savings habits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluckabaughJan 25, 2012
I agree actually! They should at *least* pay the same tax rate, definitely not less. After that it's all semantics. Most people are angry that the rich are paying less and making more. It's not punishing the rich to make them at least pay the same amount as everyone else.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
glad we found common ground. :)
CaptainobliviousJan 26, 2012
So you agree they should pay the same amount as everyone else? and that its not socialism?
corydorningJan 26, 2012
yes...income taxes should be the same. that is not socialism.
charlotte_webJan 25, 2012
Class income is sociological. Why does a person aspire to a six or seven figure income? Because they believe they can achieve it. If you come from a family of means, you have the example of your parents to follow. You strive to fit in to the same class as them when you grow up.
Similarly, if you are born to a single mom in the projects... what's the estimation of your self worth? Your peers have "ghetto attitudes". Education doesn't mean much to them. Most of them aspire to blue collar positions.
What's to stop the kid in the projects from applying himself to his schoolwork, studying hard, getting scholarships, and getting a good education and having a successful career? The biggest hurdles are in his own mind.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
I won't argue the point about being born with a silver spoon in your mouth. It has its advantages. but if you "spread" the wealth I can tell you EXACTLY what stops the kid in the projects from doing his schoolwork, studying hard, getting scholarships and getting a good education and having a successful career...the fact that he doesn't NEED to do any of it and he'll still be okay.
For some that is good enough, and they don't have the drive to do more. For some it isn't. Driven individuals come from all walks of life, and being born into wealth helps...but it is FAR from the deciding factor.
penglustJan 25, 2012
I agree with you up to a point. There will always be a subset of those that are extremely driven that do escape. It will be a small percentage.
Having had the questionable joy of being in the middle of desegregation in Columbus Georgia, I went from a pretty good 5th grade year to a s**tty 6th grade year. The teacher was really crap and really though her job was to keep the kids quiet. Learning was very much an option.
Opportunity needs to knock at some time.
strenothJan 25, 2012
You are exactly right about it being the attitude that prevents poorer young people from aspiring to higher levels of success.
This is actually part of the argument against the current form of welfare. The idea is that by having grown up receiving money for little effort, that expectation is carried into adult life. They expect and feel like they deserve welfare, just because they don't have a job.
So the question is, how do you provide just barely enough help to get a poor family through difficult times, but not so much that you remove the inspiration for working hard to earn a higher income?
I don't have an answer to be honest. It's a difficult question. The liberal extreme says to take practically everything from the rich and use it to feed and house all the poor in comfort, the conservative extreme is to take away all government charity and leave it to private charities to figure it out.
Both seem to not work to me.
CaptainobliviousJan 26, 2012
"The liberal extreme says to take practically everything from the rich and use it to feed and house all the poor in comfort" who said anything that even sounds like that? I happen to be extremely liberal, like borderline socialist and even I wouldnt say that lol
strenothJan 28, 2012
Sorry Capt, I don't think that makes you the extreme :) The liberal extreme in america is pretty much communistic, despite the plentiful examples we have of countries failing under that system.( Russia collapsed, the Chinese backed off and went more capitalistic because they realized pure communism wouldn't work.)
Honestly, I understand and support the idealism behind socialism, I just do not think the combination of human nature, economic resources, and current technology is capable of supporting it.
There is some small hope for the technology aspect of things to change the landscape radically, but I think we have a couple hundred (or more) years before that level of self-replicating, easily programmed/controlled nano tech becomes available.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Actually, Economics status of the parents is the #1 determination of future earning -- not even going to college has as great effect anymore.
It's a lot harder to "intern" for a year to get your foot in the door with the top companies if you need food money, for instance.
Sports accomplishments will also get you ahead more than Good Grades.
I made the Dean's list in college, and I've gotten offers from Mensa and "The Book of Lists" to join. Your ideas of a Meritocracy are not well founded.
In the most Socialist European countries, there is a much higher chance for poor people to move up in income (class) than here in the USA. Here it's something like 15%, while England is around 50% and Denmark even better.
charlotte_webJan 25, 2012
Intelligence, in itself, is not a guarantee of success. I can't account for all of your life choices. I know people who have a very high IQ, but remarkably low Social Intelligence. Your account name would suggest that you are more of a rebel than a conformer. The folks who make the big bucks, by are large, are big-time conformers.
CaptainobliviousJan 26, 2012
and thats what we need? a country full of conformers....
charlotte_webJan 26, 2012
My point being, your financial success is entirely in your hands.
I bet you could sit down and write out a list of 5 things you could do (or start doing) that would greatly benefit your career long-term. But, what's the trade off? More time in school? Less social time? More hours at the office? More business networking?
imarascalJan 26, 2012
Your blue collar workers,,,assembly lines, cashiers, bus drivers cooks, waitresses, cab drivers , janitors, housekeepers, truck drivers, etc. Can you live without them??? HA!!!
charlotte_webJan 26, 2012
No, we absolutely can not. But there are very few "blue collar" jobs that will make you wealthy, which was the original topic.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Is that how you explain this?
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
corydorningJan 25, 2012
What's there to explain? Surely you've heard of outliers. Of course the top 1% makes the most money! And of course the amount of money they make goes up! Because they have far more to invest and get a returns on.
You don't change a system of taxes to revolve around 1% of the people who earn money in this country.
Do you suggest we all start speaking a Native American language since 1% of people speak it?
What about making everyone take the bus more? 2% of people take it as their primary mode of transportation. That would better the environment...
Of course, you don't do either of these. It's 1%...I want to know about the 99% and make legislation around it!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
did you read outliers? It disagrees with you. Being born into fortune is a huge factor and the lack of mobility is mostly exclusive to this country today. This is something that should be changed.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
I have not...but an anomaly in 1% of the entire population is the epitome of an outlier. Pick the definition you prefer:
1. A person or thing situated away or detached from the main body or system.
2. A person or thing excluded from a group; an outsider.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
yes tax the consumer classes so that the rich may lead even fuller lives while the economy falters and infrastructure crumbles. This is the republican plan.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
/sigh
and yet Obama has been president for 3 years, had control of congress the first 2 and here we sit...having the same discussion. wake me when your messiah delivers on something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
You mean like when he passed comprehensive healthcare reform? The repeal of an outdated DADT regulation that does nothing for our military? Bringing the troops home from Iraq? Killing Osama Bin Laden? Growing jobs consistently for 22 months?
I don't think Obama is a messiah or even always right, I think he is a good politician though. If you disagree than you are not watching or being realistic. He promised more than he can deliver and that too is politics but what he has got done is real and important.
The bigger problem is what your favored politician is promising and can't deliver. Romney knows the cost of our current system of healthcare and campaigned heavily to get a better system which is what the Affordable Care act was based on and now he has to disavow one of his greatest achievements just so he doesn't look bad to obstructionist politicians. What do you have to compete? Name one of their plans which actually does anything but make it easier to outsource work and rake in money? They are all bad choices. They are all bad politicians.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
Bringing the troops home from Iraq? Publicity stunt to get reelected. While at the same time building the largest embassy in the world there and switching from troops to government contractors. If you believe our presence int he ME is any less than it was a few months ago, there's no real point in continuing this conversation.
Healthcare reform? He can't even convince his own party that it's still the right direction to go.
DADT? I don't lean one way or another on this, so it is what it is.
Killing Bin Laden? Job well done.
Job Growth? He's still 1.6m in the hole since he took office. I hope the growth continues for the people's sake...but the growth is somewhat on the slow side.
What about Fast and Furious? Libya? Debt Ceiling/Spending? Afghanistan? Gitmo? NDAA? All far bigger issues (w/ the exception of gitmo), imo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
Outliers? Not hardly. The 1% has most of the wealth in America. Do you know that 1% of Californians pay 80% of the estate tax? That means that 1% owns 80% of the wealth!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
You want to know about the rest of us? Our taxes are going up while our pay is going down.
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
corydorningJan 26, 2012
This is obvious. The top 1% are never going to own only 1% of the wealth. You live in a dream land if you think that.
And had you read all of my comments you would know that i think we need to pay the same income tax rate or even a tiered system could be put into place. but i'm not for taxing wealth. plain and simple.
you have your opinion i have mine. if you want everyone to earn the same thing, there are plenty of places in the world where this is the case...or so the left seems to suggest.
after making the income tax rate the same or even slightly tiered, see where things fall and let it be.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
Your story is made up fiction.
1: Don't want to, Taxes are for government spending on infrastructure and accumulated debt. Taxing the do-wells prevents the further taxation of a stagnant middle-class. This isn't to give handouts to the middle-class or poor but to increase the ability of this economy and its infrastructure to support them doing better on their own.
2: No clue what this means but real millionaires and billionaires are paying less than they should be. It's not rocket science.
3: The government even by Republican/Libertarian standards can build infrastructure and that supports America, Its economy, and its people.
4: Money doesn't disappear. You can argue that it can be spent better though and more importantly should be spent better here rather than sitting in accounts in the Caymans or Swiss.
5: Noone wants to be poor. How does making it the only option prevent them from abusing loopholes in the system though. People work because the hope is their wage will increase, they'll put their kids in a better life than their own, and they will be able to retire happy in some odd years. This would all go away because you don't want to invest in our nation or its people. You think its wrong to tax those who benefit most. You think it wrong to tax those who hide their money offshore, You think it wrong to help those who would bring the good jobs home. You are the problem. You continue to rail against real solutions that benefit our nation because then the poor will just get "lazy". Stop being such an idiot.
dougchristianJan 25, 2012
As usual your argument is built on straw men. No one's advocating actual communism. A grading curve would be a better analogy than the bull s**t example of your inappropriate partisan teacher.
What we're talking about is who's going to pay for the systems we all need? We all pay a little, but when it comes to funding a new bridge should we look to the business leaders of the area or to the part-time waitresses? No one on the left wants to see a country where people are able to sit on their asses and still live a comfortable life. We do however advocate that those making minimum wage should be able to get help with basic needs and shouldn't have to carry as much of the burden for our defense, infrastructure and governance systems.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
Well, for starters, if you pay 20% income tax across the board, the wealthy pay more money due to higher salaries. Why is it so hard to fathom that?
But even if you want to use the income tax bracket system...go ahead. < 100k = 10%, < 1m = 20%, >1m = 30%. Whatever...have at it.
It's the taxing of "wealth" I have an issue with. Tax the income as it comes in...that's that. If someone chooses to spend it, so be it. If someone chooses to invest it, fine. But don't turnaround and tax the returns on investment dollars.
When you invest you aren't guaranteed anything in return. If someone takes the risk and does well you can't just decide to say "oh man, this guy made some smart investments, let's take some of it". That's ludicrous!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianJan 25, 2012
One thing you should understand is that nothing you've ever thought of is hard to fathom. There are only a handful of people on the planet for which that would actually be true. In general , where you encounter impasses like this it's because you've had a little idea that you think is profound but which everyone else realized as obvious years ago and already incorporated.
That risk you're talking about cuts both ways. You can deduct investment losses from your income. What you are advocating is that someone like Romney should be paying no taxes and just letting his money accrue while the nation is stifled with debt. If you think that, there's something really wrong with you and there's no point in anyone discussing anything with you.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
belittling attempts on digg are always a classic.
After begrudgingly getting through your first paragraph and finally make it to something with substance (see the hypocrisy here?) you obviously don't know what i'm saying at all.
Romney should pay taxes...on his INCOME. What he chooses to do with it from there is entirely up to him. Did you earn it? Nope. Then why should you decide how it is spent? Simple. You shouldn't.
If you don't understand that, there's no point in anyone discussing anything with you.
And let the record show that this isn't specific to Romney either...I'm not a fan of the guy of at all. This is solely based on an attempt to take something from someone that they've earned.
So apparently what I'm saying IS in fact hard for you to fathom. I suppose you are one of the handful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianJan 25, 2012
My first paragraph applies to everyone. The handful I mentioned, since you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, are the Einsteins who can actually think things you wouldn't understand. The problem is that you're one of these Dunning-Kreuger people who think all their thoughts are profound. Notice how there are no complex concepts in anything you say and yet you act like people are going to have trouble following.
What you're suggesting is massively cutting the amount of money paid by wealthy people. Romney's tax bill would go from $3 million (too low) to a few thousand (insane on every level imaginable). The same would apply to all the rich. The reduction in revenue and ballooning of the deficit would be enormous. It would fall to the middle class to make up the difference. And for what? You think the problems in this country are that it's too hard on guys like Romney? If so you're a f**king idiot.
TGRHvWGAFJan 26, 2012
He's right though cory. If you don't believe me then next December I want you to stop by your local branch office for any investment company and ask why everyone's so busy. It's because their clients are unloading dud stocks before the end of the year so they can take a deduction for the loss on their taxes. The system you're asking for is one where the federal government subsidizes the gambling that investors do on the stock market and helps eat the loss, but makes nothing when those gambles pay off. You're blaming others for your lack of understanding, then whining about it when people show you scorn for expecting to be taken seriously over and over again.
penglustJan 25, 2012
And if you don't invest the money it will never make income. Your argument, is as stated, a straw man and a sound bite. It is one tiny thing taken out of context.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
please enlighten me as to what i'm misrepresenting? the only illusion being made is that you somehow have the right to spend someone else's money and apparently are upset that convincing people that it's the proper solution is harder than you thought.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
don't tax returns (aka profit?)? If they don't make a profit than we tax them? Where did you get your income tax bracket? The real ones can be found easily. I pay 25% and I'm not rich. I'm definitely not over 1 million. How deluded are you?
corydorningJan 26, 2012
it was hypothetical for ease of use. if you want to take a simple hypothetical which was used to represent what i was saying to invalidate it, feel free. just plug in the current numbers for the amounts i listed if that makes you feel any better.
tax INCOME equally across the board or have a slightly tiered structure. leave investment money alone. i can't be any clearer on my opinion, just like you are entitled to yours.
i don't think someone making $50k/yr should pay 20% and someone making $5m/yr should pay 15%. You won't find that I said that anywhere.
tribbledotJan 26, 2012
Investment money isn't investment money, it's the profit made off a good investment. I don't want to take their losses but to pretend this isn't profit and therefore not subject to the same rules is stupid. They invest to make money and they know it and you know it but when you rig the system to make the rich better able to abuse our system than you are not playing fair.
You want to pretend the guy with swiss and cayman island bank accounts is investing in America? He's investing in himself which I'm not against but then we should tax them properly as we do our struggling middle-class. He isn't contributing anything to our nation by playing the system and shipping his money out of this country. Mitt isn't the only one either.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Obama has done NOTHING but support the status quo. The "stimulus package" did indeed save the auto industry -- but 40% of it was the cost of more tax breaks.
The Greatest period of Growth in the USA was right after FDR's (an actual Socialist after he tried and failed with market reforms) administration did the OPPOSITE of everything you just said.
>> Strike a nerve? It's more like the incessant barking of a Dog who continues to think he has something to add to the conversation.
I finally learned that there is a term for this annoying "Yeah -- we won the argument" kind of little celebration we get from the dumbass who scored on his own in-zone and does a victory dance; it's the "Dunning-Kruger effect"
"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid."
rickthebrickJan 25, 2012
Sometime in the near future if not now someone is going to build a better computer and most everyone is not going to care because their present computer will do everything they require of it. This will slowly take place in most other products too. A lot of our products today are thrown away because of a cheap part because everyone has different parts and it is not economical to stock and sell all those parts. Once a product reaches a certain point it will be economical to standardize around that product. Capitalism does not in any way help in the total cost of ownership. Our houses are not well built since it would be too expensive in the near future but too expensive over the long haul. Capitalism is only concerned about their own products. It encourages one to build a product at the cheapest price with the cheapest labor. It only makes sense that sometime in the future that we will automate to the point that we will not need but a small minority of the population to produce our products and services. So what are you going to do about it? Killing them off would be better than not taking a small part of the rich's money so they can have some of our products. Jobs were created under Clinton when the tax rate were higher for the rich. So that arguement is plain garbage. Your abviously think everyone wants to sleep and eat all day if given the chance. People will always need work to help with self worth so there is no way a large per centage of people will want to go without a job even if they do not need the income. I believe that before 2030 most if not all labor will be automated and we will see a large percentage of the children born today not able by no fault of their own to get a job. So what does capitalism do for us today. It destroys families by making our children move a lot and a great distance from their parents. It constantly destroyes people dreams since with every recession they are laid off and than they have to restart in another job. In the near future government should hire most everyone so that they can be hired by the private sector but will not lose their job when that private sector goes brankrupt. Capitalism will be dead before 2050 period.
emo110Jan 25, 2012
Ah, the old Tale of the Economics Professor updated to put Obama's name on it... still a "tall tale" full of propaganda.
For those interested in reading an intelligent rebuttal, start here:
http://dailymull.com/1371/The-Tale-of-the-Economics-Professor
His response to the last paragraph basically sums it up...
~~~~~
"All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed."
1. Notice that "socialism" is still left undefined, so that it can be used to tar the political opponents of the right, who have nothing to do with anything like communism.
2. The example, being both fictional and contrary to the real world, proves nothing.
But even if it had been a real example, it would still prove nothing—except that a group of students gave up trying to learn when it became clear that the professor was going to jerk them around, lie to them, change the rules, and generally turn the academic class they had signed up for into a circus, just because he disagreed with them on a political point.
3. The story, and the argument at the end, are both rooted in a mistaken and simplistic view of human nature.
~~~~~
And then there is the revised version describing how thing would actually work in a "free" market:
http://dailymull.com/1518/The-Revised-Tale-of-the-Economics-Professor
TGRHvWGAFJan 25, 2012
First, I don't believe this for a second. This sounds a lot more like something you'd read in a forwarded email than something that would actually happen. No educated economist would deem any policy that's come from the Obama administration to constitute socialism, and no self-respecting teacher would let their political beliefs have any sway in their grading, or set their students up to fail just to make a point. If this story is true, then as a teacher I'm embarrassed to belong to the same profession as this instructor. And of course while we're on the subject, there's no such thing as a community college instructor who has never failed a student.
So let's say this actually happened. There certainly are community college instructors out there who are opinionated and unprofessional enough to do something like this after all. First there are flaws in the model - with grades we're not working with a finite resource. There are enough points to go around for everyone to get an A, whereas there's not enough money to go around for everyone to be a millionaire. Likewise in the instructor's experiment there was equality across the board with respect to high and low performers - An F student slacking could have a negative impact that was far disproportional to that of an A student working hard. By comparison, you could enact every single policy Obama has ever recommended and the resultant effect would still be the opposite in the real world - the middle and top of the socio-economic food chain generate far more of a positive impact to GDP than the poor and destitute draw from it.
Finally the five truths that this fictional faulty experiment claims to prove are fundamentally flawed and/or irrelevant:
1. No one wants to legislate the poor into prosperity. There is however a strong desire to legislate the poor into opportunity, and the cost of doing so is not so high that it would somehow make the wealthy no longer prosperous.
2. This statement assumes that all recipients of social benefits that are aimed to get them "back on their feet" are permanent, and it likewise fails to take into account the drain that the destitute place on all of us, including the wealthy.
3. The people from whom money is "taken" won't miss it. When we talk about having a 35% tax bracket we're talking about $250k plus earners (less than the amount that Mitt Romney describes as "not much") paying less than $10k more than they currently do... which oddly enough is the same amount of money Romney was happy lay down on a bet with Rick Perry.
4. You also cannot increase overall wealth and prosperity by concentrating it in the hands of a relative few, particularly when that relative few have a tendency to save money rather than spend it, and when they do spend it they often do so overseas.
5. The real-life scenarios in which social programs keep someone afloat are far from glamorous. When there is a upward mobility at all levels of the food chain, it's a rare few who are actually content to live on government cheese. If anything the opposite is true: the rest of us work harder because we don't want to be the guy on food stamps or unemployment.
So allow me to show you what a real teacher does when there's a class in this situation - say you have 20 students: 4 are getting A's, 4 are getting B's, 4 have C's, 4 D's, and 4 F's. A good teacher will certainly cultivate those A's and B's and continue to challenge them. But there's also an amount of outreach that a good teacher will do to the D's and F's... not to the extent that the higher performers are ignored mind you. In fact, a good teacher will engage the A and B students in ways that the D and F students are brought into play as well - as it so happens, peer learning is an incredibly effective technique because forcing oneself to explain an understood concept to another actually increases the level of understanding of both people involved. But also a good teacher over time won't distribute their time and energy evenly among those D and F students. An important part of teaching is identifying the ones who don't give a crap, and spending more time with the ones who aren't lost causes. Helping those who hel themselves. The ones who have given up? Well there's still a bare minimum that they get - you grade their tests and you inform them that continued lack of performance will result in them failing the class (the food stamps of teaching, if you will). But the ones who demonstrate a willingness to work hard and dig themselves out of their hole? They're the ones who deserve more time and energy so that you create for them an opportunity to succeed.
And that's all anyone's talking about here - equality of opportunity.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
Seems parental involvement isnot being considered. Too many parents lack the ability to help their children, but encouragement and "do you want to be like me or better?" Attention to their homework and meeting with teachers are essential.
caredjoJan 25, 2012
The article is making some pretty big generalizations to justify each point but, on a personal level, I agree with the overall sentiment of each point.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
The problem isn't wealth. It's corruption. People who earn an honest living should be able to keep what they earn. Those who are found to have "gamed" the system should be punished through extreme measures. Take ALL their earnings back. Period.
Oh...and the government needs to practice what they preach and earn an honest living as well. Stop bailing out your buddies and collecting on promises you made to lobbyists/special interests.
strenothJan 25, 2012
how do you figure out who gamed the system? How do you *justly* decide who to punish?
through the justice system.
How does it decide whom to persecute and punish? through laws.
There's the rub. If they have broken no laws, there is nothing to punish. Now we're in a bind, how do we change the laws to better catch the corrupt? They can spend their money to help keep the laws they like in place.
This stuff is not easy.
isaac7719Jan 26, 2012
Exactly, this.
What really irritates me, is when a lot of these people in power do absolutely horrible and unethical things, and there is no way to get them in trouble for any of it, because these guys *wrote the laws so they could do these terrible things in the first place*. The icing on the cake is when some brainwashed, morally-confused fiscal guardian comes along and says we're wasting our breath talking about people who aren't breaking the law, even though that is entirely part of the problem.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
The problem is the cost to get elected, that's why JOHN DOE is locked out, except for localoffice. Additionally the time between Primarys and General Elections is too long.! Primaries whould be held on the same day nation.wide
TGRHvWGAFJan 26, 2012
I'm in agreement on this actually. It's just that I consider using one's enormous wealth to change the rules to their benefit and the detriment of numerous others to be no less of a gaming of the system than outright theft and fraud. Stealing isn't okay just because you're playing calvinball.
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
We are Americans who want to understand things, see the truth, and make good decisions first and foremost. Let us focus on what we all can agree on first, and how we can understand and make progress together, more than we waste time on disagreement, partisan distractions, and waving the flag of I'm more correct than you. Diversity of thought should unite us in finding new answers. We should use state and local government as focused experiments for trying out new policies. Political points of view should be turned into focused experiments ex)a libertarian city, an focused official liberal/conservative state, and focused official democratic/ republican state, an environmental state, a populist state, a moderate state; all so that we can clearly see the results of these policies.
We need to apply careful scientific, and mathematically thought to the way we make decisions in our most important institutions. We should have a heck of a lot more family, friend, neighborhood, political, and local town hall meetings and interactions to work out better ways of doing things and talking things out. Working together is the ultimate social contract and the reason society was founded and continues to exist. We all want a clear, better future, where we can learn how to work together. It is possible that people get over their differences.
Together we can multiple our efforts in a positive effective way.
We need to team up and continue to talk, and try.
Let's takes steps in that direction.
jmunjrJan 25, 2012
Of course alternet left out some of the Democrat lies about income inequality...
dusanmalJan 25, 2012
Single fundamental lie by Democrats about equality: Equality of outcome is somehow good.
Equality of outcome means lack of progress, death by mediocrity. To have progress there MUST be inequality to drive change. In Universe we have large cold areas and some hot stars... that drives the dynamics of it. Once Universe dies, it will all be equal, same temperature for all and nothing going on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousJan 25, 2012
Exactly so we should enact policies that that drive all the energy to just 1% of the stars... Great analogy.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
If we lived in an economy where the "excess population" was simply allowed to die off then your universe analogy would work. We must make all parts of our "universe" warm enough to support life.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
Stealing wealth from productive people is not productive. Giving everyone a sound currency and the freedom to be productive is.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Given your logic we should tax the idle rich and give all of the money to the people who actually work for a living.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
"Given your logic we should tax the idle rich and give all of the money to the people who actually work for a living."
Incorrect. But I bet you'd love to tax rich folk. Where did I say steal money from people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
You: "Stealing wealth from productive people".
That is *exactly* what wealthy people do. My hard earned money is stolen by some rich profiteer every time I go to a chain store or restaurant and every time I fill up a car with gasoline.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
"My hard earned money is stolen by some rich profiteer every time I go to a chain store or restaurant and every time I fill up a car with gasoline."
To steal means to take against your will. Get a clue on what stealing means first.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
How do they come up with the Penalties on late payment?
At the Banks; Why does "insufficient funds" cost $35 (limited to 5 per day) when they didn't pay the bill, and if you go to a restaurant they run your card and CHECK if you can cover the meal with 30 year old equipment and it costs nothing?
If you have the money to pay insurance for the year, it can save you 10%.
People who don't think being poor is expensive and time-consuming, have never had to deal with being poor. There are a million little gotcha fees.
>> Also, if you aren't literate and a savvy internet shopper -- you overpay for a lot of crap. This may be why it's necessary to steal cable. ;-)
corydorningJan 25, 2012
i agree with you on the fees. but that's not taxes and is a different issue entirely.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
cory,
We are talking about MONEY taken from us. If you want to complain about what Big Gov takes -- It's reasonable that I can complain about the Quintuple costs of "private" natural gas companies vs the Big Gov gas company that was cheaper and more responsive. The Usury like fees many "services" charge. The $8 Fee tacked on to PAY a utility company. The costs of TicketMaster owning the market for concerts. The cost of Health Insurance which is a scam.
The MOST costly things are not Big Government in my life -- it's Big Business that has a product I have no choice in.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
Tax isn't theft. It is especially not theft when an idle millionaire gets to claim at 14% which is far less than he should be able or less than his secretary. Address the issue not the rhetoric.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
"Tax isn't theft."
Taking money from someone against their will is theft. Unless you have a different definition on what stealing and theft is. Technically, its extortion, because they are taking money from you using the THREAT of violence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
Build your own roads, create your own infrastructure, and leave this country so that we can prosper.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
I would prefer NOT to pay for Gas and Electricity into my home.
I'm willing to RECEIVE these services -- but I'm not willing to PAY for them. That is theft by your definition.
I'd like the military, the drug sniffing dogs, TSA, business lawsuits, and corporate prisons to go away. These only help the WEALTHY OWNERS. These are services that don't benefit me, and my money was stolen to pay for them.
From now on, the RIAA will pay the entire bill for the FBI. And BP and a few other oil barons will pay the entire cost of our military.
Fair is fair.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
"Build your own roads, create your own infrastructure, and leave this country so that we can prosper."
Read some history. Private railroads and roads were built quicker, more efficiently and cheaper before government roads came into play.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
"I'm willing to RECEIVE these services -- but I'm not willing to PAY for them. That is theft by your definition."
What? Taking something from you against your will is theft. How is voluntarily paying for services theft? Use some common sense here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustJan 25, 2012
>> Read some history. Private railroads and roads were built quicker, more efficiently and cheaper before government roads came into play.
BS. Railroads mostly received right of way by government decree or were given the space flat out. In the case of early RRs they were often given big chucks of land to sell of for capital to build the tracks. I.E. government subsidies
Roads have been historically built by some one person to get from field A to house B or by decree of some government agent. The lord of some area needed to transfer goods to a larger area so caused his area to have roads. Usually there was also some higher level decree from a King it in some ways integrate the plans. Go back to the power of Rome and see what their roads did for them.
Talk to the older generation about what it was like to travel in a car before the interstate. We idolize route 66 but it really was a gruesom treck.
limitgovJan 25, 2012
Incorrect. Read about private railroads
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf
they were created cheaper and were much more efficient.
corydorningJan 25, 2012
the secretary is the rhetoric. take care of yourself. end of story.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
Noone wants you to be their sugar daddy cory. We do want a nation competitive with others and this takes money. Money we have been letting the rich not pay in the hopes of job or wealth creation. It hasn't worked. It's time to stop pretending that they are pissing gold on us and time to get real and realize that consumers drive our economy not millionaires. Tax them what they should be taxed anyways and improve our nation and its infrastructure for the betterment of all our people.
tribbledotJan 25, 2012
just out of curiousity have you seen Mitts tax returns. Have you heard the comments from Bill Gates or Warren Buffett? What is it that you are missing?
corydorningJan 25, 2012
I have heard Gates and Buffets comments...it's publicity.
Look no further:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patriotic-millionaires-demand-higher-taxes-but-unwilling-to-pay-up-video/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
Theft is denying a family the deceased Social Security check if they die on the next to last or last day of the month....Never mind bills to be paid,
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
If the workers of the company set CEO compensation the way the board of directors sets the compensation of the worker -- then there might be an argument for "earning" their money.
But really, it's the guys in charge who decide compensation for both groups, and then call themselves deserving while they hire pundits to bitch about a union worker getting $3 more per hour than others.
atomheartmotherJan 25, 2012
It's a really dishonest straw-man tactic to claim people are lying about things they never said, but I guess that's why we find Ole novae smack dab in the middle of it.
1. Income is not all that unequal.
Show me a recent statement by any prominent conservative who says it is.
2. Inequality doesn’t matter....
Show me a recent statement by any prominent conservative who says it doesn't.
As to Mr. Morris' other contentions,he cites the "painstaking analysis by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva found “a strong correlation between the reductions in top tax rates and the increases in top 1% pre-tax income shares from 1975–79 to 2004–08”.
It is completely illogical to point to income BEFORE taxes to suggest that the rich do not pay enough taxes. But that aside, the assertion that it's "a lie" to maintain that "Income inequality is not a result of tax policy", is so overly-simplistic and disingenuous that it (ironically) ought to be construed the same way.
Global markets, new technologies and a host of other factors have widened the income gap in this country far more than tax policy has. As to solutions, the best recipe for giving working people a bigger slice of the economic pie is full employment. And you don't further employment by government wealth distribution
Wealthy Americans contribute a greater share of taxes than do their peers in many other industrialized nations. Contrary to Morris' assertions, the nonpartisan Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that U.S. income tax was about as strongly redistributive as income taxes in Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. They also found that:
"Redistribution strategies based on government transfers and taxes alone
would be neither effective nor financially sustainable. First, there may be counterproductive disincentive effects if benefit and tax reforms are not well designed. Second, most OECD countries currently operate under a reduced fiscal space which exerts strong pressure to curb public social spending and raise taxes. Growing employment may contribute
to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever."
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/12/49170449.pdf
Democrats seem to think that many of our problems could be solved simply by raising taxes on the rich. Drowning out serious debate by skewing statistics and demonizing our fellow citizens who happen to have been successful doesn't solve problems, it only breeds more; division and chaos being the primary ones.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
helpingallneedsJan 30, 2012
They stole everyones money and lied about it!
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Fairness is simply a balance to rampant competition. Both need to be balanced. People deserve the fruit of their labors and should never be capped in their pursuit of success. However, we can't let people succeed to the point where the majority of people fail. Someone has set the rules so that they and not society succeeds while most people fail.
When people at the bottom have barriers to succeeding, and are left out of the progress of society, they may very well need a fair bit of extra help to get out.
This is part of the social contract.
We need to give people a fair chance to succeed. Whenever the majority of the wealth is concentrated the society no longer benefits. A society is not healthy with only kings(tyrants) and peasants. A more balanced society has more innovation, more education, more prosperity with more opportunities for people,
Those who promote the free market, capitalism, profiteering, greed to unfair extremes forget that not only they can be victims to the bigger bully taking all the benefits (tyranny). Competition run rampant, is no different than wolves getting into the chicken coop. Neither should we unfairly distribute and turn everyone into chickens or sheeple. We simply need to limit the extra benefits of those who don't need as much help, and we need to pass those benefits on to those who fairly do. Force nothing, steal nothing, just set the rules fairly.
Capitalism isn't bad, Unchecked Capitalism is a king of the hill game where those on top try to keep people off. Anyone not on top can eventually be kept down unfairly. Capitalism should be all about fair competition in the pursuit of the fruit of your labors. When you tread on others to get there, it is unfair. When it is destructive or hurtful. Companies that pollute should be checked. Companies that hurt other companies (or consumers) should be checked. Politicians who vote themselves raises or more focused on lobbyist money than the will of the people should be checked. Tyranny and totalitarianism do come from this behavior. We need effective (and non-political) checks and balances. We need to mathematically model them and scientifically design them so they work.
Cooperation is something many people keep forgetting, The failure of Communism in the Soviet Union is a great reminder. It became totalitarian because some people seized power and forced the rest to be an equal poor.
Socialism is equally hated because many conservatives/republicans think that it means capping success, stealing fruit of rich people's labors, and making everyone share their success so that poor people can live off of entitlements. Socialism is effectively based on Cooperation, just like Capitalism is based on competition. Cooperation works as well as competition. We effectively cooperate to our success every day, with our co-workers, with our neighbors, and with our society. Cooperation is the key to this concept and just like Capitalism it can be unfairly balanced and pushed to the extreme. It also needs to be fairly regulated.
Both Competition and Cooperation are important to having a healthy society.
The whole social contract is based on people cooperating to success. The first societies were based on the concept of you do this and I do that and together we can get more done. That is how tribes form and help people survive better. A society where only some people can succeed well and are succeeding produces a lot less, that a society were most people can succeed and are succeeded. Do you think a society where most people have a chance to be educated is better than a society where only a few can afford a good education?
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Competition is way over balanced in the United States, greed and profiteering, destructive unregulated business practices, and unfairness to the majority of workers, by wages being left stagnant and cronyism dictating promotions, the wealthy becoming so much so that a hard working poor person could not fairly catch up, politicians more concerned about money from lobbyists and representing companies, cronies, and the wealthy that the average person is only cared about when he gets upset and has no real representation.
Where did the America Dream go? Where are the Mom and pop stores, the new entrepreneurs, and the new ideas; most are dominated by the few now. Just look at the concentration of businesses into chains, patents into large companies. Even small companies have less access to resources. How many people could start a cell phone company today and compete?
We push competition so much that we forget how to cooperate.
Families rarely talk or have time to raise their kids, neighborhoods no longer have community meetings or town halls to discuss local issues, schools are ignored and are usually the first thing cut in budgets (if my kid has a good school, who cares about yours mentality), and people isolate themselves through technology (not necessarily bad) and focus more on self-reliance and independence than healthy. We are divided and distracted by polarized politics moving in a way that promotes their partisanship more than it moves towards effective decisions and figuring out the truth.
We even forgot how to debate and talk rationally with each other. We are distracted by, and are focused on our disagreements more than working on coming to agreement. We forget that working towards our mutual success and still allowing us to have personal success, makes us all better. If you succeed and all your neighbors fail, your neighborhood will fail, crime will go up, your property values go down, and you will be at risk. If your community becomes increasingly uneducated around you, though you can afford a good school; you will be a victim of the consequences of that ignorance. Bad public policies will get approved, your kids will eventually have to be exposed to their kids. Everyone lives near each other's backyard now. The world is becoming more connected and smaller. The economy is becoming global.
Everyone's success is more and more becoming tied into the success of others.
Government Fiat, no, it is part of a broken social contract, when only a few members of society get the majority of it's benefit. There is good reason to rebalance it.
Note: Eventually such an unbalanced society will fail. To prove it. Let's take society A and society B. Society A is unbalanced with a few people having access to most of the wealth, freedom and success. In Society B most of the people have access to afford good education, share a more reasonable balance of the wealth, and have less than 1 out of 2 people below the poverty line. Guess which society has more productivity, creates more wealth, has a better economy, produces more ideas, is happier, and more fair? It should be very obvious. If only cronies are successful and have easy access to the American Dream, then it has died and we have no fair meritocracy, where anyone can be successful through hard work and determination.
There is no doubt that wages have been stagnant since the 1980's and Executive pay has not. The economy is not an excuse. There is no doubt that politicians cater to lobbyists more than represent their constituents. The people have little influence in D.C. People are neither paid nor represented fairly. There is no doubt that the rules have benefited the wealthy unfairly. We need to do more than fix the rules, we need to fairly help the majority of those who have been harmed. We need to get money out of politics. We need to separate Corporations and State. We need to reform patent and business law so that entrepreneurs can succeed against big companies.
We need to need to outlaw lobbyists, and we need to pay people what they are worth. We need to help the unfairly unemployed, the foreclosed upon, the unfairly wage restricted and the unfairly outcompeted small businesses, and squashed entrepreneurs.
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/24_stats_to_crush_anyone_who_thinks_america_has_a_bright_economic_future
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/bottom_line_wages_have_dropped_and_won_t_catch_up_until_2021
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/grim_view_for_u_s_incomes
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/for_34_straight_months_there_have_been_more_than_four_unemployed_job_seekers_for_every_job_opening
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-people-defend-unjust-inept-corrupt.html
http://aattp.blogspot.com/2011/12/between-2008-and-2010-30-big.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030486/-Americas-Wealthiest-Are-Actually-Destructive-Economic-Parasites-See-for-Yourself
We need a major bailout of good hard working Americans...NOW....
....or the middle class and the poor will be become serfs, or at least wage slaves, and where will our country be. Please speak up and do your part!!
Macheath2kJan 28, 2012
One gets very weary of the BS that passes as Truth in the US ... we are NOT ignorant children (or are we?)
imayberight8Jan 28, 2012
Everything they say, promise, claim to believe in: is, by historic record, untrue. God didn't want G.W. Bush in public office to begin with. Cronyism got him into office, plus a GOP biased Supreme Court decision, remember? Intelligent Christians should vote for candidates who has been proven to be honorable and forthright. PROVEN. The rest of us should all do the SAME, of course. Obama is not all he promised to be, but he IS trying to do all the right things for us, the People. Obstructionists Republicans have been stopping our President's attempts to help us. This IS public record, not partisan opinion. Republicans have lost their original way of thirty years ago or older. Greed and servitude to the biggest check, they are guns for hire for the super wealthy and powerful. Not the People, not the 99%. Not me. Screw them and vote Democratic!!
apollogoldJan 27, 2012
NO SURPRISES THERE THEN!!!!!!!
ObaAdeleJan 27, 2012
Only 5? We have known about lies and the liars, remember Al Franklin bestseller , "Lies comes.... The truth with jokes"
spider_manJan 27, 2012
Trying to force society to eliminate so called "Income Inequality" via government fiat is anti capitalism and also flies against the face of the work ethic this country was built on.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Fairness is simply a balance to rampant competition. Both need to be balanced. People deserve the fruit of their labors and should never be capped in their pursuit of success. However, we can't let people succeed to the point where the majority of people fail. Someone has set the rules so that they and not society succeeds while most people fail.
When people at the bottom have barriers to succeeding, and are left out of the progress of society, they may very well need a fair bit of extra help to get out.
This is part of the social contract.
We need to give people a fair chance to succeed. Whenever the majority of the wealth is concentrated the society no longer benefits. A society is not healthy with only kings(tyrants) and peasants. A more balanced society has more innovation, more education, more prosperity with more opportunities for people,
Those who promote the free market, capitalism, profiteering, greed to unfair extremes forget that not only they can be victims to the bigger bully taking all the benefits (tyranny). Competition run rampant, is no different than wolves getting into the chicken coop. Neither should we unfairly distribute and turn everyone into chickens or sheeple. We simply need to limit the extra benefits of those who don't need as much help, and we need to pass those benefits on to those who fairly do. Force nothing, steal nothing, just set the rules fairly.
Capitalism isn't bad, Unchecked Capitalism is a king of the hill game where those on top try to keep people off. Anyone not on top can eventually be kept down unfairly. Capitalism should be all about fair competition in the pursuit of the fruit of your labors. When you tread on others to get there, it is unfair. When it is destructive or hurtful. Companies that pollute should be checked. Companies that hurt other companies (or consumers) should be checked. Politicians who vote themselves raises or more focused on lobbyist money than the will of the people should be checked. Tyranny and totalitarianism do come from this behavior. We need effective (and non-political) checks and balances. We need to mathematically model them and scientifically design them so they work.
Cooperation is something many people keep forgetting, The failure of Communism in the Soviet Union is a great reminder. It became totalitarian because some people seized power and forced the rest to be an equal poor.
Socialism is equally hated because many conservatives/republicans think that it means capping success, stealing fruit of rich people's labors, and making everyone share their success so that poor people can live off of entitlements. Socialism is effectively based on Cooperation, just like Capitalism is based on competition. Cooperation works as well as competition. We effectively cooperate to our success every day, with our co-workers, with our neighbors, and with our society. Cooperation is the key to this concept and just like Capitalism it can be unfairly balanced and pushed to the extreme. It also needs to be fairly regulated.
Both Competition and Cooperation are important to having a healthy society.
The whole social contract is based on people cooperating to success. The first societies were based on the concept of you do this and I do that and together we can get more done. That is how tribes form and help people survive better. A society where only some people can succeed well and are succeeding produces a lot less, that a society were most people can succeed and are succeeded. Do you think a society where most people have a chance to be educated is better than a society where only a few can afford a good education?
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Competition is way over balanced in the United States, greed and profiteering, destructive unregulated business practices, and unfairness to the majority of workers, by wages being left stagnant and cronyism dictating promotions, the wealthy becoming so much so that a hard working poor person could not fairly catch up, politicians more concerned about money from lobbyists and representing companies, cronies, and the wealthy that the average person is only cared about when he gets upset and has no real representation.
Where did the America Dream go? Where are the Mom and pop stores, the new entrepreneurs, and the new ideas; most are dominated by the few now. Just look at the concentration of businesses into chains, patents into large companies. Even small companies have less access to resources. How many people could start a cell phone company today and compete?
We push competition so much that we forget how to cooperate.
Families rarely talk or have time to raise their kids, neighborhoods no longer have community meetings or town halls to discuss local issues, schools are ignored and are usually the first thing cut in budgets (if my kid has a good school, who cares about yours mentality), and people isolate themselves through technology (not necessarily bad) and focus more on self-reliance and independence than healthy. We are divided and distracted by polarized politics moving in a way that promotes their partisanship more than it moves towards effective decisions and figuring out the truth.
We even forgot how to debate and talk rationally with each other. We are distracted by, and are focused on our disagreements more than working on coming to agreement. We forget that working towards our mutual success and still allowing us to have personal success, makes us all better. If you succeed and all your neighbors fail, your neighborhood will fail, crime will go up, your property values go down, and you will be at risk. If your community becomes increasingly uneducated around you, though you can afford a good school; you will be a victim of the consequences of that ignorance. Bad public policies will get approved, your kids will eventually have to be exposed to their kids. Everyone lives near each other's backyard now. The world is becoming more connected and smaller. The economy is becoming global.
Everyone's success is more and more becoming tied into the success of others.
Government Fiat, no, it is part of a broken social contract, when only a few members of society get the majority of it's benefit. There is good reason to rebalance it.
Note: Eventually such an unbalanced society will fail. To prove it. Let's take society A and society B. Society A is unbalanced with a few people having access to most of the wealth, freedom and success. In Society B most of the people have access to afford good education, share a more reasonable balance of the wealth, and have less than 1 out of 2 people below the poverty line. Guess which society has more productivity, creates more wealth, has a better economy, produces more ideas, is happier, and more fair? It should be very obvious. If only cronies are successful and have easy access to the American Dream, then it has died and we have no fair meritocracy, where anyone can be successful through hard work and determination.
There is no doubt that wages have been stagnant since the 1980's and Executive pay has not. The economy is not an excuse. There is no doubt that politicians cater to lobbyists more than represent their constituents. The people have little influence in D.C. People are neither paid nor represented fairly. There is no doubt that the rules have benefited the wealthy unfairly. We need to do more than fix the rules, we need to fairly help the majority of those who have been harmed. We need to get money out of politics. We need to separate Corporations and State. We need to reform patent and business law so that entrepreneurs can succeed against big companies.
We need to need to outlaw lobbyists, and we need to pay people what they are worth. We need to help the unfairly unemployed, the foreclosed upon, the unfairly wage restricted and the unfairly outcompeted small businesses, and squashed entrepreneurs.
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/24_stats_to_crush_anyone_who_thinks_america_has_a_bright_economic_future
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/bottom_line_wages_have_dropped_and_won_t_catch_up_until_2021
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/grim_view_for_u_s_incomes
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/for_34_straight_months_there_have_been_more_than_four_unemployed_job_seekers_for_every_job_opening
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-people-defend-unjust-inept-corrupt.html
http://aattp.blogspot.com/2011/12/between-2008-and-2010-30-big.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030486/-Americas-Wealthiest-Are-Actually-Destructive-Economic-Parasites-See-for-Yourself
We need a major bailout of good hard working Americans...NOW....
....or the middle class and the poor will be become serfs, or at least wage slaves, and where will our country be. Please speak up and do your part!!
profmnaimJan 26, 2012
If there are problems and problems of severe income inequalities require solution which may not be possible unless discussion in the public and most appropriately in the election year to ensure it to focus and for early solution.
harrygamblerJan 26, 2012
Tu Casa es me casa, me casa es no su casa. ;-)) The same all over the World.
reutelerJan 26, 2012
good people may not be drawn into a field by money, but they certainly will be chased out by the lack of it. at some point you've got to pay back the loans, pay the bills and support a family.
imarascalJan 26, 2012
You can't even make your savings grow, less than 1%, same for CDs. Talk about the middle class dying out! When IRA was first initiated my bank paid 10%. We need to freeze all prices, as well as wages.
ElectionOddsJan 25, 2012
Interesting!!!
markglJan 25, 2012
Why are they called lies? We just want to not be taxed to death, rich or poor. Geez you think they'd get it by now.
KapsiotJan 25, 2012
There shouldn't be income equality. This is a capitalist system. If you want a communist system - move to Cuba.
asfinktersezwutJan 25, 2012
I've been to Cuba. There is a vast inequality there too.
charlotte_webJan 25, 2012
Pure communism has never existed in the world; it's an unsustainable model.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
This is not a capitalist system, this is a crony capitalist system.
jphrJan 25, 2012
Nice trick, accusing your opponent of something he didn't say and then argue against is. Nobody is arguing for income equality in the absolute sense, but where income inequality was limited to 40 some three decades ago, it now stand at more than 500. You will find this kind of income inequality in other third world countries as Zimbabwe.
fertilebastardJan 26, 2012
Are you equating our economy to Zimbabwe?
fertilebastardJan 25, 2012
"The bitter fact is that it is harder for a poor person in America to become rich than in virtually any other industrialized country."
Perhaps because we punish and demonize anyone who gets their income up high enough to become wealthy. Remember.. we don't tax wealth (untill you die) we tax income. The wealthy already have theirs so screw everybody else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
"Perhaps because we punish and demonize anyone who gets their income up high enough to become wealthy. "
--No. This is what those whose lives revolve around defending rich *right wingers* believe. Just because you pretend not to know there are lots of wealthy liberals and progressives who aren't so f*cked in the head to believe they're oppressed, doesn't make it so. I know it makes you feel good to believe your views represent those of the majority but the facts simply do not bear this warped mindset out. They don't. Normal people do not believe the wealthy are paying too much. Please put away the crack pipe.
auditortuxJan 25, 2012
Lets do a little thought problem - how does someone who starts poor become rich? A huge income? Sure, that helps, but if you spend everything you earn, you'll never get wealthy. The trick is to spend less than you ear and bank as much as you can.
If a family makes 40k a year and saves 10% of that annually (so $333 a month) if they average 4% returns, they'll have $308k after 40 years (working from 25 to 65). That assumes no wage growth but also no inflation. We can work the numbers all you want to bring in more variables, but that's the trick. Having $300k from just saving 10% for an average American would be great... especially since they probably wouldn't have a mortgage at that point too.
So if we want to make that savings easier, we don't want to tax savings... we would want to tax consumption to encourage savings. But that has problems as a sales tax is effectively regressive. There are various ways to get around this (rebates/prebates, excluding necessities, etc), but the truth remains - you tax what you want less of. Do we want less income? No, we want less consumption, which means more savings.
Now I don't think this will ever fly, so I'd be happy with a flat tax, only one exemption per person/child where anyone could calculate their taxes by an easy formula:
(Income - Adult Exemptions * #Adults - Child Exemptions * # Children) * Rate
No gaming that system... except by having more children.
dusanmalJan 25, 2012
You forgot one important bit... As I posted here few times - I personally know a handful of millionaires ... Every single one of them arrived here with LESS, way less than average poor in the US and with obligations of support overseas.
So, no, they did not get stuck with 40K$ dollars job forever. They were hungry and advanced working hard, grabbing OPPORTUNITIES. That is what US has. Opportunity exists for all but if you idly sit by, you'll linger and not advance. It is your own duty to become rich (if you want) no one else's.
jrstinkfishJan 25, 2012
I personally know a handful of unicorns. See how easy it is to make up s**t in a comments section?
imarascalJan 26, 2012
Loved it!
fertilebastardJan 26, 2012
Dusanmal nailed it.. There is too much of folks whining about other people's success while sitting on their hands refusing to put their own money and sweat at risk. Most of these entrepenuers make their obsene profits by putting other people to work, ie. creating jobs.
icwydJan 25, 2012
I can start a company by just saving for 40 years and at 60 it will be out of business in 1 year because I didn't have the capital to rent a building, obtain inventory, and pay my employees for a year. That ain't rich.
If you started in 1970 with the goal to have the equivalent of $300K, after 40years. At 3% inflation that $300K would be worth just over $50K. You aren't rich.
Please lay out the scenario where I am rich by saving $300K over 40 years?
auditortuxJan 25, 2012
You just missed the entire point... that's assuming 4% returns and never getting a raise the entire time. If you want to add in inflation, wage increases, the effects of owning a home, etc, feel free to build that model.
But my point was that if someone who made $40k their entire life can end up at 65 with $300k in the bank by merely saving 10% of their salary, that's a pretty good return. Look at it this way - they have 7.5 years worth of their salary saved (actually, if you want to compare to what they had been spending, it'd be 8.3 years). That's assuming nothing but straight savings and interest. Its safe to assume that over the course of 40 years that inflation would at least be offset by wage increases or deflation in other areas (otherwise you see an unstable economy).
We could make a model that accounts for everything... but I don't have the time for that.
icwydJan 25, 2012
You understand that earnings have been flat over the last 40 years?
auditortuxJan 25, 2012
In 1967, the median income was $33k and now its somewhere around $44k. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf) That was offset by inflation. So the net purchasing power have been flat when adjusted for inflation.
icwydJan 25, 2012
I guess I don't see how that helps your argument.
$300K 40 years ago has the purchasing power of $54K today.
$33K income, over 40 years ago, is now $44K.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
Let us put that flat income over the years into perspective.
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
"Lets do a little thought problem - how does someone who starts poor become rich? A huge income? Sure, that helps, but if you spend everything you earn, you'll never get wealthy. The trick is to spend less than you ear and bank as much as you can."
--You lost me at sentence two. How can a poor person have a huge income? And why do you presume that only a select few Americans are able to grasp these principles?
If a family makes 40k a year and saves 10% of that annually (so $333 a month) if they average 4% returns, they'll have $308k after 40 years (working from 25 to 65). That assumes no wage growth but also no inflation. We can work the numbers all you want to bring in more variables, but that's the trick. Having $300k from just saving 10% for an average American would be great... especially since they probably wouldn't have a mortgage at that point too.
--Thanks but what if they aren't able to save that much through no fault of their own? What if the cost of living is increasing faster than what they can make even working multiple jobs? If my salary doesn't keep pace with the rising cost of gas, rent, utilities, healthcare expenses, etc. What about catastrophic events that occur that are beyond someone's control?
"So if we want to make that savings easier, we don't want to tax savings... we would want to tax consumption to encourage savings. But that has problems as a sales tax is effectively regressive. There are various ways to get around this (rebates/prebates, excluding necessities, etc), but the truth remains - you tax what you want less of. Do we want less income? No, we want less consumption, which means more savings."
--Who said anything about taxing or not taxing savings? fb made the ridiculously simplistic claim that we "punish the wealthy" (as if to suggest there are no wealthy people who feel differently). I think our problem is that too many people with nothing going for them are extremely uneducated and lacking in basic common sense. They have been brainwashed to believe that they can magically control all of life's variables and that if they just read Trump's latest book and follow his recipe to the letter, they'll become rich. It doesn't work that way.
"Now I don't think this will ever fly, so I'd be happy with a flat tax, only one exemption per person/child where anyone could calculate their taxes by an easy formula:
(Income - Adult Exemptions * #Adults - Child Exemptions * # Children) * Rate
No gaming that system... except by having more children."
--Ok…what does anything have to do with my post or fb's?
auditortuxJan 25, 2012
It was a simple calculation. On par, wages tend to follow inflation. And people earn much more later in their life than they do at the beginning. That calculation assumed no inflation and no wage increases.
We could develop a model that calculated the effects of all of that, but that would take a good hour or two to make sure we don't have any ghosts in the formulas.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 25, 2012
That person gets sick and doesn't have health insurance because MItt needed another house. He loses everything and is destitute and unemployed today.
Want me to come up with other scenarios? I can because they are happening everyday.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
That happened to me. I had a house and was doing well until i got a long term illness in 1994. I sold the house and used the money to pay bills because I was too sick to work for years.
The Veterans Administration was a huge help and kept me alive.
In 1999 I got well enough to go back to work and a few years later again bought a house.
Republicon economic policies are a total disaster in the real world.
http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/graphing-the-cost-of-health-care/
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
I made good money and saved.
I never bought a car new -- I bought them used for cash and drove the wheels off.
Our family had over $80,000 in savings.
Wife got cancer, I got stressed with working 3 jobs. The company I worked for 13 year at, got a new manager in our area who decided they needed to cut SOMETHING. So my job was removed.
Since they found they STILL needed someone in-house to produce multimedia, they hired some kids out of college. They quit. Then quit again.
>> The investments were sold JUST before the market collapse -- as I was expecting it. But all those savings and increased earnings never happened for me.
I suppose if I knew more sports anecdotes and a lot less about computers, AV, graphics, programming, and just spent all my time complaining about Big Government and the wonders of Big Business, I could have moved into some position where I told other people what to do. Sports is about the most important skill in the "leadership" arena. Or at least, it impresses all the dumpy alpha-male wanna-be's who are proud that they can't even check their own e-mail.
There is NOTHING more demoralizing than getting to know the "job creators" at large company. It's Dilbert's boss everywhere.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
I agree -- the accusation that we Demonize the wealthy is absurd...
To "complain" about the theft and corruption of Wall Street that sucked up trillions of dollars and nobody went to jail but a token Berney Madoff is considered by SOME people to be class warfare.
Wow.
Nobody feels more persecuted than these sensitive, poor little rich people, huh?
Asking for justice is not DEMONIZING.
UnaBomberrrJan 25, 2012
then arrest and prosecute anyone breaking the law.
most wealthy people are clean as a whistle and earned that money without breaking the law or being unethical.
when you lump all wealthy as criminals and theifs it is demonizing them and no better than being a racistComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Most wealthy people are clean as whistle. Not all. Yet NO wealthy people end up being held accountable for their crimes. Hold the wealthy as accountable for crimes as everyone else and it would be harder to demonize them.
There is a class war in the country, and we are losing. The wealthy pay the legislators to write the laws to make sure their behavior is not illegal. Hell, the legislators ARE the wealthy.
UnaBomberrrJan 25, 2012
the majority of the wealthy in this country have nothing more to do with the political process than you or I.
I have zero problem going after any scumbag who broke the law to make their money. But to demonize all of those with money in this category is absurdComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
You could not be more wrong. Wealthy people and corporations don't give their money to political campaigns for nothing. That money buys access and influence. Lobbyists write the laws.
UnaBomberrrJan 25, 2012
and unions give WAY more than the wealthy to have the laws written for your side. It goes both ways and its comical that you only demonize one side (the much less abusive side at that) of the spectrum
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
keep up on this bulls**t though. the american public sees right through itComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
"keep up on this bulls**t though. the american public sees right through it"
LOL.
If Unions were this omnipresent and all powerful corrupting influence, why are they down below 7% when they used to be at 40% in the '60s, and why has Obama done almost NOTHING for them? Why do you never hear a pro Union comment on the allegedly "Liberal" TV news?
MOST of Obama's money came from small donations by individuals. In 2nd Place were Wall Street "donations" by companies like Chase and Goldman Sachs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
(Goldman was the largest SINGLE donator outside of the University of California)
You've just repeated everything I hear on CNN -- do homeless people buy commercials on the Money shows?
rightfutureJan 25, 2012
Completely outlaw money influence in politics and you outlaw financial corruption. (Also outlaw lobbying and you outlaw any influence beyond the people.)
We need to re-engineer the system to solve for good decision making and
focus on representing the people 1st, not those with money.
The only way to eliminate financial corruption is to check and balance it.
Change the focus of money back to people.
fertilebastardJan 26, 2012
Wanna get rid of the corruption?? Easy, don't make government so damn powerful. There will always be rent seekers trying to buy influence as long as there are leaders insisting on influencing everything.
We can start with term limits. Get rid of the career politicians who's main concern must be raising enough money to get reelected. If these guys know they're going home, they may just do the right thing.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
The vast majority of the damage done to this country was totally LEGAL -- because we turned our backs and let the uber wealthy use their power and money to change the rules.
Glass-Stegall was repealed and this allowed Banks to play in the financial realm again.
Usury Laws were stretched or broken, and this allowed Credit Cards to mushroom to 40% compounded interest on a whim.
IT was more profitable swapping financial papers in the USA than it was selling illegal drugs. And far more damaging.
ericschc1Jan 25, 2012
"Perhaps because we punish and demonize anyone who gets their income up high enough to become wealthy."
Please, show us those with legally obtained wealth that are being punished in any measurable way & before you go there, equating a tax rate that still allows them to be very rich is about as much of a "punishment" as a prison meal with no bodily fluids is a "culinary treat".
fertilebastardJan 26, 2012
Talk to any small business person in New York. If you have 5 bad years, then finally have a good year, you are "rich" and nearly half of your income will be confiscated. More than half if the liberal whiners get their way. Meanwhile, you still have to pay the debt that accumulated in the bad years.
It's all about income redistribution and convincing those that are too timid to go after the dream that they are being screwed.
h8f8kesJan 25, 2012
Buried as propoganda and spam.
BluntzworthJan 25, 2012
Do you bury all of Bett's submissions are propoganda and spam, because they are.
h8f8kesJan 25, 2012
I bury crap coming from blogs like Politics USA, WND, or alternet because they are the problem with political discourse in the country today. Spreading half truths and hatred is not what we need.
Want to know why Congress is constantly fighting and never passes anything except destroying our civil liberties? Look no farther than the Alternet and the people who are funding them.
As far as Bett goes, I seem to recall her posting from a variety of sources, mostly from her political bent. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. Occassionally Fox and MSNBC do get the story right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 25, 2012
comparing Alternet to WND is laughable.
WND is ten time more nutty then Alternet.
at least with Alternet it's easy to comb the bits of truth out of what they are saying.
To be fair to Brett, Brett tends to submit from a variety of sources
h8f8kesJan 26, 2012
Both feed misinformation from extreme fundamentalists pushing an agenda. You should not have to comb through the poo looking for corn. I stand by my statement.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Yes. Yes you are.
h8f8kesJan 25, 2012
Uncalled for. Where is my blog spreading lies, half-truths and hatred?
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
All 5 of these are true....
...If you a reading a lying website that lies that 5 true statements are lies, you might be on Alternet.....
......................where leftists get to create thier own alternate reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mablungJan 25, 2012
I'm not trying to troll you. Why not debate each point and cite sources? That would be a much better tactic than your current one.
killersquirelJan 25, 2012
@mablung - He doesn't debate each point because it's much easier to just say a smarmy comment and run off. There are a group of people on here that will just bury any article that comes from alternet. They don't even bother to read it, it's just easier to say it's all lies and run away. Quite pathetic.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
And yet I read the article, left a detailed critique and even sourced my comment, but all I got was blind buries as well from the left.
Are you part of THAT "group of people"?
killersquirelJan 26, 2012
I honestly didn't read your post that you are referring about and subsequently wasn't one of the "group of people" that buried it.
I have been buried many times from a wonderful "group of people" that might belong to on comments that were simply asking questions to a post and offered no opinion. They see it's a comment from me and bury it. That's digg, deal with it.
So what was your point again?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
Oh I do "deal with it" all the time as a conservative here. Nor did I say a word about it until I saw your post complaining about blind buries.
Kinda funny you'd tell me to deal with it when you were the one bitching about it in the first place.
killersquirelJan 26, 2012
Actually I wasn't bitching about it, I was stating a fact based on numerous posts from certain conservatives here on how they will state something ridiculous (see Dr_Right's comment) and then will run away when questioned on the comment.
I was actually commenting to mablung which I thought was pretty obvious with the use of the @mablung in the beginning of my post.
I really find it funny that you are bitching about being buried because you are a conservative here on digg. I hear that bitching all the time from that "group of people".
Let me explain something to you. I have had many good conversations with conservatives here without burying them or whatnot. I have read many of your comments and while there is the rare occurrence that I will agree with something you posted, you are not getting buried because you are a conservative, you are getting buried for the ridiculous comments that you make.
Perfect example of you stating a ridiculous comment is the one I'm replying to right now. What part of my initial comment is even remotely bitching? To try and prove some kind of point you have to attack me by saying I'm bitching.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
"you are not getting buried because you are a conservative, you are getting buried for the ridiculous comments that you make. "
Again, my comment in the main thread here addressed every point in the submission reasonably, with counterpoints and sources to bolster the arguments I made.
Further, I didn't complain about buries until I saw you whining about the evil conservatives doing the exact same thing that you and yours do.
You are a hypocrite.
killersquirelJan 26, 2012
"Further, I didn't complain about buries until I saw you whining about the evil conservatives doing the exact same thing that you and yours do.
You are a hypocrite."
Again, you don't point proof of my whining. I also never used the word "evil" when talking about conservatives. I guess you belong to that "group of people" that will make things up to bolster their argument. That is pathetic.
My original comment that you claimed I was whining in simply stated that there is a group of people that will bury a story simply because it's on alternet or some other site and then will run away when confronted on the matter. Dr_Right had made a ridiculous comment on that very same thing. Mablung made a comment saying that he should cite a source or example. All I said was to not bother because he wouldn't get an answer from Dr_Right. Is that whining to you? Was I not correct as Dr_Right never answered mablungs comment?
Have I seen people make comments saying "buried for being on fox news", sure I have. Have you ever seen myself make that comment? No, I have never made that comment.
Obviously you don't understand what the word hypocrite means. According to dictionary.com here is the definition of the word hypocrite.
"a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."
Now, considering that I asked you what part of my comment was "whining" and you failed to answer, then added adjectives that I have never used to attack me, and then called me a hypocrite I will simply state that you are a lying piece of trash. Notice jackass that I didn't bury any of your BS comments. If I did, then maybe I could considered a hypocrite. Maybe you should learn the definitions of big words before you use them in public?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
"Now, considering that I asked you what part of my comment was "whining" and you failed to answer,"
Your entire first comment was whining:
"There are a group of people on here that will just bury any article that comes from alternet. They don't even bother to read it, it's just easier to say it's all lies and run away."
And as I pointed out, you've got nothing at all to say about the other "group" (yours) who do exactly the same thing when it's from a source or user they don't like.
"Maybe you should learn the definitions of big words before you use them in public?"
And maybe you should see if you can get a government grant to go back to school in order to educate yourself to the fact that words (big and little) often have more than one definition. From Merriam-Webster, just slightly more esteemed than Dictionary.com:
"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue"
So when you haughtily condemn one group's blind burying while remaining silent about another's (your ideological bedfellow's), you're most definitely " feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not".
The only possible alternative to that is that you're simply a blinded idiot (which, admittedly, given the majority of comments I've seen from you, is also entirely possible).
killersquirelJan 26, 2012
"Your entire first comment was whining:"
Actually it was stating a fact, not whining. This fact was proven by both Dr_Right by not responding to mablung's comment and the numerous times I have seen people post comments similar to "buried for being on alternet", etc.
"And as I pointed out, you've got nothing at all to say about the other "group" (yours) who do exactly the same thing when it's from a source or user they don't like. "
Actually I did address this if you bothered to read my response. I think it's equally pathetic if someone says comments like "buried for being on fox news." I have also never written a comment like that. I also don't belong to any "group" here. I'm a moderate, with a slight liberal stance that doesn't affiliate myself with any party. I have voted for candidates that where Democrat, Republican, Green Party, and Independents in my lifetime. I vote for the candidate and not the party.
I like your pathetic attack on dictionary.com and the fact that words have multiple meanings. I choose the meaning that best fit the circumstance. Good for you, now go get yourself a cookie.
When there is nothing there, you pieces of trash make things up to bolster your argument. First you claim that I referred to conservatives as "evil" and then you claim that I ignore the liberal posters here on digg that bury articles for being on conservative websites. I have done neither of your claim, but that's ok you will still make your unfounded attack.
I guess according to your amazing intellect I should have written an addendum to my initial comment that says "*although there are some groups here that are liberal that will do the same thing." This just bolsters political correctness, which is something the rightwingers consistently say we have too much of.
Thank you for proving yet again that you're an idiot that isn't worth responding to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
Oh, I get it now...you didn't want to mention that blind buries aren't limited to the right because you didn't want to be politically correct.
I've heard some pathetic excuses before, but I think that one really takes it to a whole new level of both disingenuousness AND idiocy. You weren't even bright enough to come up with bulls**t that was even plausible--congrats on the two-fer there bro.
"I'm a moderate, with a slight liberal stance..."
Oh sure. The Koch brothers are the root of all evil, Lincoln wasn't really a Republican, fetuses aren't human and NPR doesn't lean left. But you're really a 'moderate'.
You are so full of s**t it's coming out your ears. And you add absolutely nothing to this community whatsoever....99% of your comments are simply attacks on other diggers, you f**king hack.
Get f**ked.
killersquirelJan 26, 2012
Your response is laughable on many levels.
"Oh, I get it now...you didn't want to mention that blind buries aren't limited to the right because you didn't want to be politically correct.
I've heard some pathetic excuses before, but I think that one really takes it to a whole new level of both disingenuousness AND idiocy. You weren't even bright enough to come up with bulls**t that was even plausible--congrats on the two-fer there bro."
So, according to you "bro" every single comment here should also reference the other side of the argument otherwise you are a hypocrite. What amazing insight and intelligence you possess "bro".
"Oh sure. The Koch brothers are the root of all evil, Lincoln wasn't really a Republican, fetuses aren't human and NPR doesn't lean left. But you're really a 'moderate'. "
I never said that the Koch brothers are the root of all evil. That's more BS that you need to lie about to try hard to bolster a claim. The Koch brothers obvious are conservative and have plenty of money that they have "donated" for their cause. Just like the rightwing jackasses like yourself have to add that George Soros is there to donate for his causes, and you have the audacity to call me a hypocrite.
I also never claimed that a fetus isn't human. Keep lying though, it's all you have you pathetic piece of s**t. I am indeed pro-choice, so apparently therefore I can't be a moderate because of that stance. What intelligent wisdom you displayed on that one.
I also never claimed that Lincoln wasn't really a Republican. What I HAVE stated when your rightwing jackass buddy twinklyjesus posts that Lincoln was a Republican to bash the Democrats that the ideology between both parties have switched since Lincoln was a Republican. This is common knowledge, and to comment like twinklyjesus does when he states that and bashes Democrats is disingenuous and dishonest. Keep lying and saying that I state Lincoln isn't really a Republican. I never said he wasn't, I simply stated that the parties have changed ideologies since then.
NPR doesn't lean left. That doesn't change no matter how many times you dumb f**ks repeat that lie over and over.
The only people I have attacked here on digg is f**king pieces of trash that have attacked me and lie. These people are twinklyjesus who has never backed any of his vile attacks when questioned to provide proof of his lies, stevanoski (probably another account for twinklyjesus) who has never made any intelligent replies and has numerously used childish posts such as twinkly 26; killer 0, bluto, and yourself for the above lies that you have stated.
It's laughable that you say that I haven't contributed to digg. Apparently when you state an opinion that you are contributing to digg, but when I do it I'm not.
You have really proved that you're a lying, f**king piece of s**t "bro". Also, only f**king morons use the term "bro". It's obvious that you're a f**king idiot, so I'll let you know that I was mocking you when I used the term and that's why I put in quotes "bro".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 26, 2012
"So, according to you "bro" every single comment here should also reference the other side of the argument...."
When it's a comment about blind burying on a thread where non-trollish comments are being blindly buried by "both sides", then yeah, it's a hypocritical lie of omission.
In any case, your pathetic "political correctness" excuse for your partisan hackery is beyond laughable (but I did lol all the same).
"I never said...I also never claimed....I simply stated...blah, blah, blah."
Look moron, there are these things called your comments which are recoded here. So unless you're going to claim that someone hacked your digg account then, yeah, you're just another mealy-mouthed progressive malcontent who simply attacks people and parrots just about every left-wing talking point that drips out of Soros' fetid bunghole.
And what's worse is that even though you've apparently deluded yourself to believe otherwise, you're not even a good troll....frankly, you're boring as s**t and clearly not very bright.
"Also, only f**king morons use the term "bro""
Sorry that got your goat, pal.
killersquirelJan 27, 2012
"When it's a comment about blind burying on a thread where non-trollish comments are being blindly buried by "both sides", then yeah, it's a hypocritical lie of omission."
That comment is as laughable as you are pathetic "bro".
"In any case, your pathetic "political correctness" excuse for your partisan hackery is beyond laughable (but I did lol all the same)."
It wasn't an excuse asshat. I was mocking your ridiculously whiney attack on me. I have posted twice now that I think it's pathetic when both sides bury with the excuse that "it's on this site so I'm burying it...blah...blah...blah." Of course you ignore that fact because it doesn't fit in line with your f**king bulls**t attack on me "bro". There are a lot of omissions that you're making hypocrite.
"Look moron, there are these things called your comments which are recoded here. So unless you're going to claim that someone hacked your digg account then, yeah, you're just another mealy-mouthed progressive malcontent who simply attacks people and parrots just about every left-wing talking point that drips out of Soros' fetid bunghole. "
Absolutely f**king idiot, these comments are recorded here. So, why don't you link to the comments where you claimed I said the Koch brothers are the root of all evil, Lincoln wasn't really a Republican, fetuses aren't human. Show me absolute proof that NPR leans left. You will of course come up with nothing because all that you claimed I wrote doesn't exist. I have already addressed what I said regarding Lincoln in these very comments, so try again tool.
You see you're so delusional that you have to make up lies and twist peoples words to believe that are correct. I have never heard a word that Soros has said, nor have I ever heard of him until you rightwing jackasses bring his name up all the time here on digg, but apparently according to your small little mind I'm parroting him. That's truly funny tool, "bro".
""Also, only f**king morons use the term "bro""
Sorry that got your goat, pal."
That didn't get my goat, it just illustrated what type of f**king idiot I was dealing with "bro".
Quick, Quick go run and get all your little Digg Patriot friends to bury my comments. For the record asshat, I haven't buried any of your comments here nor will I.
So, troll why don't you run along and f**k off asshat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelJan 27, 2012
@atomheartmother - The fact that you brought up the Lincoln comment without talking about the disingenuous and dishonest comment that twinklyjesus wrote that it was a response to is a lie of omission.
You're a hypocrite
f**king hack asshat, "bro".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
"Quick go run and get all your little Digg Patriot friends to bury my comments."
God, you just never stop whimpering and complaining do you? I can only surmise that it's a reflection of how you were raised....you f**ked up and got a cookie instead of the ass-whipping your parents should have given you.
"Thank you for proving yet again that you're an idiot that isn't worth responding to."
That was about four comments up from the novel you wrote me. Glad I was able to get under your skin :)
killersquirelJan 28, 2012
Whatever you say hypocrite. I guess you need your little buddies to feel good about your lies and hypocrisy.
Go f**k yourself, "bro".
killersquirelJan 28, 2012
I like how you claimed I made a hypocritical lie of omission, and then go on to say that I said that Lincoln wasn't really a Republican (which I didn't say) and made your lie of omission by leaving out the context of what you were referring.
You're such a hypocritical hack. Thanks for the laugh dumb ass.
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Citation needed.
It should be easy to empirically refute or prove. With your GIANT conservative brain -- please don't just leave us hanging by merely dangling your wisdom like a worm on a hook. Don't just say it isn't so and flutter off to another blog to write the wrongs and injustice done to the 35% bracket who actually pay 15% because its dividends.
The .1% NEED your support so that they can get that 3rd Yacht this year. Only YOU can save the endangered great American parasite known as the JOB CREATORS!
I'm sure half of them are curled up in fetal position right now, as they wrap a warm protective blanket of Municipal Bonds over their cold skin. "Mommy, they said we were greedy on Digg today!" Mommy is the safe word that mistress Stephanie uses to take off the nipple clamps and start "story time." Reading the Limbaugh Letter adds $500 to her fee.
theonewhoknowsJan 25, 2012
Dr. Right? More like "Dr. Wrong."
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
Citation needed
theonewhoknowsJan 25, 2012
* see:
"idiot." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011.
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
LOL....good one
....now, maybe you can post that document that provides for our "income equality", since you are such a research specialist.
theonewhoknowsJan 25, 2012
I like your response. Up diggs from me!
(By the way, my original statement was made ironically. I attempted to call attention to the ease at which people are providing unfounded, off-topic and unproven retorts to your original unfounded, somewhat off-topic and unproven argument. I of course have no way to back up what I said. Nor do you. That's why I think it is funny).
ericschc1Jan 25, 2012
Now that we know you know the word "citation", lets see some that refute the article and/or your original comment about AlterNet.
Dr_RightJan 26, 2012
There is no such thing as "income equality"..... It is a fantasy.... a vapor in the world of the leftist.
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
No citation needed here.....
It is Alternet sewage and the worst part is that you know it is. But it says what you want to hear, so you hang out there.
.... Again, give me the documents that support "income equality" and then we may have something to debate..... until then there is no point and no debate.
....just leftist drivel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 25, 2012
Yes, no citation is required to see that you are an ideological extremist.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
I'm convinced now, good job DR
ericschc1Jan 25, 2012
The article contained numerous links to its citations, whereas you have provided essentially nothing but "nu-uhs" & "because I said so's".
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
Would someone please tell us what document protects us from "income inequality"?
......I did a quick check in The Constitution..... It's not there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 25, 2012
I love it...When at a loss for counterarguments to those actually being made (or if you're just too damn lazy), try to deflect and then make the issue about strict Constitutionalism. If it's not specifically in the Constitution then it's not worthy of debate. Morality, schmorality. Perfect.
76sportsterJan 25, 2012
Typical bureaucratic response ... thinks we need a document to ensure the obvious .
Dr_RightJan 25, 2012
I'm sorry.... In the real world, there is absolutely no intention that there will be income equality.
Do you think a person digging ditches should make the same as a doctor???
The whole concept of "income inequality" is absurd..... as is Alternit-wit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Jan 25, 2012
No one's suggesting a ditch-digger makes what a doctor makes and you're the only one taking the discussion to levels of absurdity to say/think otherwise.
Dr_RightJan 26, 2012
The entire concept of "income equality" is what is absurd. Only in a leftist's world could such a concept ever get past the joke stage.