- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- "I'm rich; tax me more!"
"I'm rich; tax me more!"Follow
I don't think our examples count, because its Ok for pubes to do stuff like that, but if a dem does it, then it is wrong, and they hate business for it and want people/places/country to fail. Obviously.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,
How about hiring someone to run the auto industry who has never been around it? If you hire unqualified people for jobs they don't have the expertise to handle you're inviting failure. That's what Obama's done; hired plenty of professors to real life jobs and they're failing miserably, which incidentally is why they're all quitting. Democrats face adversity by running and pretending it's someone elses problem. Just look at how Hillary is helping the Dem party this time around.
Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:45am by varusword75
Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:46am by varusword75
Quote:
You know, I've never had experience in the auto industry; therefore, I must want it to fail.
How about hiring someone to run the auto industry who has never been around it? If you hire unqualified people for jobs they don't have the expertise to handle you're inviting failure. That's what Obama's done; hired plenty of professors to real life jobs and they're failing miserably, which incidentally is why they're all quitting. Democrats face adversity by running and pretending it's someone elses problem. Just look at how Hillary is helping the Dem party this time around.
Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:45am by varusword75
Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:46am by varusword75
gbaji wrote:
Sure. No one's debating the value of providing education for our citizens. The difference is that I'm honest about it, while some want it to appear like we're doing something else. The value of an educated population absolutely makes the cost of educating them worthwhile.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
Why is it perfectly OK to pay for competent workers but not healthy ones?
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,
They don't have any business experience and a very real desire to undermine any economic recovery. Can't very well sell the "we'll help the poor masses" mantra if most the people aren't poor.
oh and did you see the obama admin changes altering the total number of jobs available to keep the unemployment rate under 10%?
Quote:
You're making the claim that they don't care about business because they have no business experience.
They don't have any business experience and a very real desire to undermine any economic recovery. Can't very well sell the "we'll help the poor masses" mantra if most the people aren't poor.
oh and did you see the obama admin changes altering the total number of jobs available to keep the unemployment rate under 10%?
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. No one's debating the value of providing education for our citizens. The difference is that I'm honest about it, while some want it to appear like we're doing something else. The value of an educated population absolutely makes the cost of educating them worthwhile.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
Why is it perfectly OK to pay for competent workers but not healthy ones?
We need intelligent people that are too sick to work so that the CEOs can keep more of their hard earned money.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
According to lolWiki,
Quote:
In some contexts, the term may also include basic social services such as schools and hospitals.
Yes. But that's not the same context that one would use to talk about "highway infrastructure" either. My observation that you're using the terms differently in order to make a false equivalence is still valid.
Quote:
Me thinks you're piddling about something that is unnecessary.
If you haven't noticed, I like to point out how language is used to modify people's perceptions of things. It's one of the things I see around me a lot and try to point out when I see it so that others make make note of it as well. Oftentimes, the best way to get someone to support something isn't to convince them of the value of it, but to simply change the words you use to describe it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. No one's debating the value of providing education for our citizens. The difference is that I'm honest about it, while some want it to appear like we're doing something else. The value of an educated population absolutely makes the cost of educating them worthwhile.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
This does not automatically mean that the value of providing free health care works the same way though, does it? They are also different things.
Why is it perfectly OK to pay for competent workers but not healthy ones?
Because we aren't running out of healthy people to work for us? I have not yet heard of a company hiring foreign workers because there weren't enough healthy US workers to do the job. However, I have seen lots of foreigners hired (and moved to the US to work even!) at great expense because there literally are not enough qualified people in the US to fill the demand for some jobs.
That's why one is something which the country should spend money on and get the money back, while the other isn't. At some point, we have to draw a dividing line between what we are responsible for and what the state is. The starting point is that we're responsible for our own lives (and that includes our own health and housing and food and clothing, etc). The state doesn't provide education for us so that we can live better lives, but so as to increase the total productivity of the citizens. Uneducated people turn to crime. Educated people tend to be productive workers. This is also why we tend to stop our free education at 12th grade. That's sufficient for someone to be productive and be able to hold down a job. The rest is up to the individual, as it should be.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I only have one thing to say: For you people who are eager for the tax rate to rise so the deficit can begin going down, why wait? Just begin giving the government more of your hardearned money immediately. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.
/facepalm
Oh, riiiight. I forget, none of you think you fall into the catagory of being rich. That always describes somebody else.
Totem
/facepalm
Oh, riiiight. I forget, none of you think you fall into the catagory of being rich. That always describes somebody else.
Totem
Totem wrote:
For you people who are eager for the tax rate to rise so the deficit can begin going down, why wait? Just begin giving the government more of your hardearned money immediately.
For the same reason all the flag-waving pro-Iraq war conservatives didn't grab their rifles and run off to Baghdad in March 2003, I guess.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The thing is giving the middle class a break for a bit, dunno where you learned economics but a nation is only as strong as the middle class is economically, considering the majority of a nation is usually middle class. IE. they are the ones who lose more jobs, lose more houses stop spending the most money. It goes without saying doing anything to spur them back to spendy spendy happy times is good. This includes a false sense of equalization to the higher tax brackets.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Jophiel wrote:
Totem wrote:
For you people who are eager for the tax rate to rise so the deficit can begin going down, why wait? Just begin giving the government more of your hardearned money immediately.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
The thing is giving the middle class a break for a bit, dunno where you learned economics but a nation is only as strong as the middle class is economically, considering the majority of a nation is usually middle class. IE. they are the ones who lose more jobs, lose more houses stop spending the most money. It goes without saying doing anything to spur them back to spendy spendy happy times is good. This includes a false sense of equalization to the higher tax brackets.
I haven't seen any graphs on this for over a year, but in the fairly recent past I've seen graphs showing that America's Bell Curve of wealth distribution had seriously flattened out, even well before the GFC. It's more like you've got one third of your population very very poor, one third middle class, and one third wealthy. Great for all the middle class who had gotten into the technically wealthy bracket (most of whom probably don't feel wealthy). Not so good for all the middle class who had fallen back into poverty.
I'd be interested in seeing some graphs since the ongoing GFC. Google some now? Nah, time for House.
Edited, Oct 20th 2010 10:11am by Aripyanfar
Aripyanfar wrote:
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
The thing is giving the middle class a break for a bit, dunno where you learned economics but a nation is only as strong as the middle class is economically, considering the majority of a nation is usually middle class. IE. they are the ones who lose more jobs, lose more houses stop spending the most money. It goes without saying doing anything to spur them back to spendy spendy happy times is good. This includes a false sense of equalization to the higher tax brackets.
I haven't seen any graphs on this for over a year, but in the fairly recent past I've seen graphs showing that America's Bell Curve of wealth distribution had seriously flattened out, even well before the GFC. It's more like you've got one third of your population very very poor, one third middle class, and one third wealthy. Great for all the middle class who had gotten into the technically wealthy bracket (most of whom probably don't feel wealthy). Not so good for all the middle class who had fallen back into poverty.
I'd be interested in seeing some graphs since the ongoing GFC. Google some now? Nah, time for House.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
The thing is giving the middle class a break for a bit, dunno where you learned economics but a nation is only as strong as the middle class is economically, considering the majority of a nation is usually middle class. IE. they are the ones who lose more jobs, lose more houses stop spending the most money. It goes without saying doing anything to spur them back to spendy spendy happy times is good. This includes a false sense of equalization to the higher tax brackets.
I haven't seen any graphs on this for over a year, but in the fairly recent past I've seen graphs showing that America's Bell Curve of wealth distribution had seriously flattened out, even well before the GFC. It's more like you've got one third of your population very very poor, one third middle class, and one third wealthy. Great for all the middle class who had gotten into the technically wealthy bracket (most of whom probably don't feel wealthy). Not so good for all the middle class who had fallen back into poverty.
I'd be interested in seeing some graphs since the ongoing GFC. Google some now? Nah, time for House.
Edited, Oct 20th 2010 10:11am by Aripyanfar
Not sure where I got the link to this, but saw it a few weeks ago http://www.good.is/post/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-who-has-money/
The thing to remember about incomes is that the cost of living in different parts of the US are vastly different that it's not fair to compare people in different cities or states directly. $150K a year is kind of middling in NYC, but it's fabulously wealthy in a rural town. $60K a year is fairly poor in San Francisco, but it's pretty damn good here in north Georgia.
The real reason for the shift in income inequality must also be correlated to the shift in cities. More people live in metro areas today in the US than in truly rural areas, which means a corresponding increase in the base cost of living.
The real reason for the shift in income inequality must also be correlated to the shift in cities. More people live in metro areas today in the US than in truly rural areas, which means a corresponding increase in the base cost of living.
Recent Visitors: 415
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (415)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- "I'm rich; tax me more!"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC