# Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"



## Nonelitist

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"



None of your damn business you socialist pig.


----------



## boedicca

I heard the fuller version yesterday.  His comment is followed by a bunch of snarky laughter from the toadies in the audience.  Disgraceful.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?


----------



## Oddball

Gotta spread the wealth around!


----------



## boedicca

Of course not.  

"Enough money" is subjective.   His Cronies deserve a lot, the rest of us much less.


----------



## Mr. H.

Success that's "fairly earned"?

What a buffoon.


----------



## Immanuel

I wonder how much higher than the 5+ million he made last year, that "certain point" is.

I mean for me, $5 Million is plenty in ten years, but he made it in one.  I wonder where he draws the line regarding CEO worth?

Immie


----------



## Xenophon

Too much is never enough.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

No Libs arean't Socialists or Marxists, no siree, not at all


----------



## WillowTree

Total fucking insanity. We,, are,,, owed,,,, an ,,,,,,, apology.. from........ the.....loons on........the .........left.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

He's not even a one-termer, you watch, Biden will be President.


----------



## Truthmatters

Protecting the corprations from the people.

Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.

I think you need to work harder though.

You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.

You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.

Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?


----------



## FrankieGA

His remarks conitinue to show his true colors. This president and the Dem's could truly give a shit less about us. When will Lib's wake up and see that this man is for nothing more than taking from everyone!!


----------



## Some Guy

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?


No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.

(Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The sound of Dems calling Obama out on his Marxists Ideology

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - Cricket Sound[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?



Sending you to Tokyo would work


----------



## boedicca

The proper definition of "enough" is personal to the individual.   When the marginal income from working is no longer worth, then "enough".

Obama's policies are forcing more and more of the productive, entrepreneurial class to that point; which is why private sector job creation is virtually nil.


----------



## Truthmatters

Some Guy said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
Click to expand...




That would be sweet, I dont work.


----------



## Some Guy

Truthmatters said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
Click to expand...

You don't work and you support wealth re-distribution?  Never would've guessed.


----------



## masquerade

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?


No shit, huh?


----------



## WillowTree

My favorite demonnrat calls, bells, whistles, and whines..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWWNrbEano]YouTube - Cinco the Donkey[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw1It3AlXmQ]YouTube - Loon calls[/ame]





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHX6YaXr7KM]YouTube - Howard Dean State Capitals - Funny Remix w/ Animaniacs[/ame]








[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLpDlUiR9_o[/ame]


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?



You do realize don't you, that the officers of these corporations are either appointed or elected by the shareholders.  Usually, at a shareholder meeting.  This is generally done by proxy vote in a Democratic election.  It is the shareholders that determine the salary of the board members.  It is the shareholders that typically approve the salaries of the Board of Directors.

What is it that you do not like about Democracy that makes you want to take the right of the shareholders away from them?

Here is a little bit of reference for you:

Board of directors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. The body sometimes has a different name, such as board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or executive board. It is often simply referred to as "the board."
> 
> A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. The bylaws commonly also specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and when they are to meet.
> 
> In an organization with voting members, e.g., a professional society, the board acts on behalf of, and is subordinate to, the organization's full assembly, which usually chooses the members of the board. In a stock corporation, the board is elected by the stockholders and is the highest authority in the management of the corporation. In a non-stock corporation with no general voting membership, e.g., a university, the board is the supreme governing body of the institution.[1]
> 
> Typical duties of boards of directors include[2][3]
> 
> * governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives;
> * selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive;
> * ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;
> * approving annual budgets;
> * accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's performance.



So tell me again, what is it about democracy that you despise that you want to take the rights of shareholders away from them?

Immie


----------



## Nonelitist

Truthmatters said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
Click to expand...




Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies. 

How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?


----------



## masquerade

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
Click to expand...




Side note:  just from reading quotes, I know I made the right decision when I threw her ass on my ignore list.


----------



## saveliberty

Wall Street to 0bama:  We Do Think At a Certain Point You've Spent Enough Money.


----------



## Some Guy

masquerade said:


> Side note:  just from reading quotes, I know I made the right decision when I threw her ass on my ignore list.


I don't ignore anyone.  Why would you want to possibly deny yourself good comedy?


----------



## Nonelitist

saveliberty said:


> Wall Street to 0bama:  We Do Think At a Certain Point You've Spent Enough Money.




I nominate this as "Post of the Day"!!

Nicely done.


----------



## Immanuel

Nonelitist said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street to 0bama:  We Do Think At a Certain Point You've Spent Enough Money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I nominate this as "Post of the Day"!!
> 
> Nicely done.
Click to expand...


I'll second that.

Immie


----------



## Murf76

When you look at the quote... the worst part is amazingly NOT what he says about "enough money".  It's his total inability to comprehend the driving force of business.  
He seems to believe that businesses should exist primarily to serve the collective, rather than the private interests of the entrepreneurs who build them. 

Individual Liberty means nothing to this guy.  He doesn't understand human nature.   He doesn't understand how the profit-motive innovates business.  There's no way he can positively affect the economy... because he just doesn't get it.


*"Were not, were not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success thats fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if youre providing a good product or providing good service. We dont want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."*


----------



## Truthmatters

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
Click to expand...


How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.

He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.

BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.

Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?

These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!

Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.


----------



## Oddball

Musta hit her pretty close to the mark, to get her all riled up like that!


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.




TM,

Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?

You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.

*sincerely*

boe


----------



## Truthmatters

Yeah riled up by some asshole suggesting only people who HAVE to work can speak.

I dont have to work.

My hubby and me planned it that way.

Got a problem with people who work to build a REAL family life?


----------



## Oddball

Yeah, whatever.


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> Yeah riled up by some asshole suggesting only people who HAVE to work can speak.
> 
> I dont have to work.
> 
> My hubby and me planned it that way.
> 
> Got a problem with people who work to build a REAL family life?





Why do you wish to deny others the same opportunity?


----------



## WillowTree

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
Click to expand...


oh dayyyyummm I can't not hardly stand it!


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?
> 
> You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.
> 
> *sincerely*
> 
> boe
Click to expand...


You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.

To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.

Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?

That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?
> 
> You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.
> 
> *sincerely*
> 
> boe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
Click to expand...




Why do you want to deny other people the opportunity to better their lives?


----------



## WillowTree

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah riled up by some asshole suggesting only people who HAVE to work can speak.
> 
> I dont have to work.
> 
> My hubby and me planned it that way.
> 
> Got a problem with people who work to build a REAL family life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you wish to deny others the same opportunity?
Click to expand...


Oh dammmmnation,, I can't not hardly stand it again.


----------



## Nonelitist

*"We&#8217;re not, we&#8217;re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that&#8217;s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you&#8217;ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you&#8217;re providing a good product or providing good service. We don&#8217;t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."*[/quote]


I would have flunked speech class if I spoke like that.


----------



## HUGGY

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.



All about his business you little faggot.  He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."


----------



## masquerade

Some Guy said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side note:  just from reading quotes, I know I made the right decision when I threw her ass on my ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore anyone.  Why would you want to possibly deny yourself good comedy?
Click to expand...

Not my kind of humor I guess.  Folks like her who post just to get responses and just to get a rise out of people, I have little time for.  So, instead of falling victim to her attention-seeking ways, I put her on my ignore list.


----------



## Nonelitist

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
Click to expand...




What does your husband do for work?  I am not asking for details.. just what does he do and for what kind of company?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?
> 
> You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.
> 
> *sincerely*
> 
> boe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> *Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?*
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
Click to expand...


Geez, that sounds like the socialist's idea of a perfect world--the redistribution of wealth by force.  It seems more in line with what the Democrats and Obama would be scheming to attempt than Boedicca.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?
> 
> You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.
> 
> *sincerely*
> 
> boe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to deny other people the opportunity to better their lives?
Click to expand...


Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to deny other people the opportunity to better their lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
Click to expand...


Probably because Obama got to those savings first.

Immie


----------



## txlonghorn

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?





I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Dumb-ass Comments....

And clearly, TM has reached that point.

Is there ANYTHING you won't justify with this man?


----------



## Immanuel

txlonghorn said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Dumb-ass Comments....
> 
> And clearly, TM has reached that point.
> 
> Is there ANYTHING you won't justify with this man?
Click to expand...


No, nothing, nothing at all.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> Why don't you live according to the philosophy you promote and sell two of your three houses?   Isn't One Enough?
> 
> You could then donate the proceeds to the Poor Starving Children you think the rest of us hate.
> 
> *sincerely*
> 
> boe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> *Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?*
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, that sounds like the socialist's idea of a perfect world--the redistribution of wealth by force.  It seems more in line with what the Democrats and Obama would be scheming to attempt than Boedicca.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Only because you are a partisan hack does it sound like that to you.

You guys keep it up , these poor betrodden wall street billionares need all the support they can get because the vast majority of Americans are still trying to pull the knife out of their backs that these assholes told them was a gift.


----------



## saveliberty

0bama to A Rod:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money. (27.5m/yr.)

0bama to Fox News:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Commentary.

0bama to Arizona:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Illegals Unhappy.

0bama to Biden:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Public Gaffs.

0bama to GM:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Pontiacs.

0bama to Tiger Woods:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Mistresses.

0bama to Americans:  I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Fat Kids.


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to deny other people the opportunity to better their lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?
Click to expand...




That's your side's philosophy, dearie.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> *Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?*
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, that sounds like the socialist's idea of a perfect world--the redistribution of wealth by force.  It seems more in line with what the Democrats and Obama would be scheming to attempt than Boedicca.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because you are a partisan hack does it sound like that to you.
> 
> You guys keep it up , these poor betrodden wall street billionares need all the support they can get because the vast majority of Americans are still trying to pull the knife out of their backs that these assholes told them was a gift.
Click to expand...


This from a racist hack?  

You do realize "You guys" and "You people" is a racist phrase don't you?  Of course you do.

By the way, you avoided my question.  Why do you hate Democracy so much that you continue to want to take shareholder rights away from them?

I'm sure you will avoid that question again.

Immie


----------



## Murf76

HUGGY said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All about his business you little faggot.  He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."
Click to expand...


Funny how no one's gone to jail for all this theft, huh?  

Is anybody here naive enough to believe that if  ultimate responsibility for the recent financial crisis rested on Wall Street, orange jumpsuits wouldn't be in the offing?


----------



## boedicca

txlonghorn said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Dumb-ass Comments....
> 
> And clearly, TM has reached that point.
> 
> Is there ANYTHING you won't justify with this man?
Click to expand...



Oooh Oooh Oooh!!!!!!

I know!  She won't justify fulfilling campaign promises, Transparency, and TRUTHfulness.


----------



## Claudette

Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden. 

You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job. 

While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand. 

After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing. 

Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden. 

Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out. 

God. Gag me. Jeeze.


----------



## California Girl

Some Guy said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here to find out you support Obama on this one.  Bet you wouldn't support Obama on this one though if he said that people doing your job should only make $25k per year though.
> 
> (Disclaimer: the above presumes you have a job)
Click to expand...


If Obama announced he was gonna sell the country to the highest bidder, truthmatters would applaud it as in our best interest. She is one of the stupidest, most partisan, lying hacks on the board.... in my opinion.


----------



## Immanuel

Claudette said:


> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.



Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.

But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.

Immie


----------



## Claudette

Immanuel said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You may be right Immie.

But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan . 

TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.


----------



## Truthmatters

Claudette said:


> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.




I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?


Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?

Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.


Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.


I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.


I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.


Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?


----------



## boedicca

TM wouldn't recognize what Capitalism is if it slapped her across the face and called her Judy.

Just sayin'.


----------



## uscitizen

Actually I quit the market when I had made enough money.
Umm plus I knew it was going to go to crap


----------



## Truthmatters

Claudette said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
Click to expand...


You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?


Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.

Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> TM wouldn't recognize what Capitalism is if it slapped her across the face and called her Judy.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Then pray tell why I have made such a good go of capitalism and you have not?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
Click to expand...


Still avoiding the question I see.

Immie


----------



## boedicca

TM,

I don't discuss private financial details on the internets, so you have no idea how I have done relative to you.

You are a hypocrite in the extreme.  You "got yours" and then support policies which will make it difficult for anyone else to succeed.


----------



## Truthmatters

Immy why dont you give everything you own to your church?


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> Immy why dont you give everything you own to your church?




A better question:  Why don't you give everything you own to the government?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immy why dont you give everything you own to your church?



Perhaps you should read post #57 and apologize for this bullshit post, TM.

I defended you in that post and once again you slap me in the face!

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> TM,
> 
> I don't discuss private financial details on the internets, so you have no idea how I have done relative to you.
> 
> You are a hypocrite in the extreme.  You "got yours" and then support policies which will make it difficult for anyone else to succeed.



Yeah right.

You are a failed caplitalist who wants to blame your inabilty to make it work for you on the government.

Quit your crying and go out and make the grade by doing what my family did , take advantage of the MASSIVE opportunities this country has to offer and make an honest living instead of sitting arround and blaming the government for your own inablity to succede.

Heres a fucking clue, you dont have to lie to people to make money. I wish the wall street assholes you keep defending would have learned that already.


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the question I see.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immy the only question to me in this post is asking why I dont give away my wealth.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
Click to expand...


This country is not a Democracy and would not work as a Democracy.

True Democracy has it problems in such a scale as our country, but corporations are not Representative Republics.  They are Democracy.  You preach that you love Democracy, but then you prove that you want to remove the rights of shareholders to democratically elect their own officers.

Go figure!  

You are a hypocrite.

Immie


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> I don't discuss private financial details on the internets, so you have no idea how I have done relative to you.
> 
> You are a hypocrite in the extreme.  You "got yours" and then support policies which will make it difficult for anyone else to succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> You are a failed caplitalist who wants to blame your inabilty to make it work for you on the government.
> 
> Quit your crying and go out and make the grade by doing what my family did , take advantage of the MASSIVE opportunities this country has to offer and make an honest living instead of sitting arround and blaming the government for your own inablity to succede.
> 
> Heres a fucking clue, you dont have to lie to people to make money. I wish the wall street assholes you keep defending would have learned that already.
Click to expand...




What a fool you are.

I don't blame the government for anything other than consuming too much of the productive lives of people who work hard for a living.  Why do you wish to make their lives more difficult?


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


This us defending me?

 Really?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the question I see.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immy the only question to me in this post is asking why I dont give away my wealth.
Click to expand...


Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> TM,
> 
> I don't discuss private financial details on the internets, so you have no idea how I have done relative to you.
> 
> You are a hypocrite in the extreme.  You "got yours" and then support policies which will make it difficult for anyone else to succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> You are a failed caplitalist who wants to blame your inabilty to make it work for you on the government.
> 
> Quit your crying and go out and make the grade by doing what my family did , take advantage of the MASSIVE opportunities this country has to offer and make an honest living instead of sitting arround and blaming the government for your own inablity to succede.
> 
> Heres a fucking clue, you dont have to lie to people to make money. I wish the wall street assholes you keep defending would have learned that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fool you are.
> 
> I don't blame the government for anything other than consuming too much of the productive lives of people who work hard for a living.  Why do you wish to make their lives more difficult?
Click to expand...



Of, by and for the people.

Why do you always lie and pretend the people of this country are not in charge of the government?


----------



## boedicca

Why are you such an idiot?


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This us defending me?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


This us?  What does that mean?

And yes, I was defending you.  We don't know how much you give to charity.  It is also none of our business.  I have never brought up your giving to charity and I believe it to be inappropriate for anyone to do so.

Yes, I was defending you.  That is your private business and no one should question you on it.  

It sure the hell was defending you!

What did you want me to claim in your defense?  That you gave 40% of your income to the poor?  I could not do that since I have no idea what you give.  Instead, I told them they were wrong for broaching the subject.

This us?  What the hell does that mean?

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This country is not a Democracy and would not work as a Democracy.
> 
> True Democracy has it problems in such a scale as our country, but corporations are not Representative Republics.  They are Democracy.  You preach that you love Democracy, but then you prove that you want to remove the rights of shareholders to democratically elect their own officers.
> 
> Go figure!
> 
> You are a hypocrite.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


WE are a democracy and every person who knows anything about this term knows we are a democracy.

Why do you hate the fact that the USA is a democracy?


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This us defending me?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This us?  What does that mean?
> 
> And yes, I was defending you.  We don't know how much you give to charity.  It is also none of our business.  I have never brought up your giving to charity and I believe it to be inappropriate for anyone to do so.
> 
> Yes, I was defending you.  That is your private business and no one should question you on it.
> 
> It sure the hell was defending you!
> 
> What did you want me to claim in your defense?  That you gave 40% of your income to the poor?  I could not do that since I have no idea what you give.  Instead, I told them they were wrong for broaching the subject.
> 
> This us?  What the hell does that mean?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


How about not joining in on the fucking stupidity that anyone who is a democrat should never accumulate enough wealth to secure their old age and should instead live at only a subsistance level to give everything beyond that to charity?


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the question I see.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immy the only question to me in this post is asking why I dont give away my wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

_*
Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.

~Dude*_


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is not a Democracy and would not work as a Democracy.
> 
> True Democracy has it problems in such a scale as our country, but corporations are not Representative Republics.  They are Democracy.  You preach that you love Democracy, but then you prove that you want to remove the rights of shareholders to democratically elect their own officers.
> 
> Go figure!
> 
> You are a hypocrite.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE are a democracy and every person who knows anything about this term knows we are a democracy.
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that the USA is a democracy?
Click to expand...


Now you are putting words in my mouth?  Frigging political hack!

Where the hell did I say I hate democracy.  Obviously it is you that hates Democracy.

But we are not a pure form of Democracy and it is probably a good thing that we are not.  I don't believe we could have survived as long as we have, if we were.  

Do you think we could have survived the Civil war as a pure form of Democracy?  No, I don't think we could have.

Do you think the civil rights act would have passed if this was a pure form of Democracy?  No way.

I for one am glad that our founding fathers had a clear enough head to foresee what a pure form of Democracy would mean in this country.  It simply would not have worked for our purposes.  

I don't hate Democracy, but I love what our founding fathers put together to prolong our existence.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immy the only question to me in this post is asking why I dont give away my wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
Click to expand...


Fuck you

What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?

Think I'll ask to have you banned.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This us defending me?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This us?  What does that mean?
> 
> And yes, I was defending you.  We don't know how much you give to charity.  It is also none of our business.  I have never brought up your giving to charity and I believe it to be inappropriate for anyone to do so.
> 
> Yes, I was defending you.  That is your private business and no one should question you on it.
> 
> It sure the hell was defending you!
> 
> What did you want me to claim in your defense?  That you gave 40% of your income to the poor?  I could not do that since I have no idea what you give.  Instead, I told them they were wrong for broaching the subject.
> 
> This us?  What the hell does that mean?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about not joining in on the fucking stupidity that anyone who is a democrat should never accumulate enough wealth to secure their old age and should instead live at only a subsistance level to give everything beyond that to charity?
Click to expand...


And where the hell did I say that you stupid moron?

How about a link moron!

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This us?  What does that mean?
> 
> And yes, I was defending you.  We don't know how much you give to charity.  It is also none of our business.  I have never brought up your giving to charity and I believe it to be inappropriate for anyone to do so.
> 
> Yes, I was defending you.  That is your private business and no one should question you on it.
> 
> It sure the hell was defending you!
> 
> What did you want me to claim in your defense?  That you gave 40% of your income to the poor?  I could not do that since I have no idea what you give.  Instead, I told them they were wrong for broaching the subject.
> 
> This us?  What the hell does that mean?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about not joining in on the fucking stupidity that anyone who is a democrat should never accumulate enough wealth to secure their old age and should instead live at only a subsistance level to give everything beyond that to charity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where the hell did I say that you stupid moron?
> 
> How about a link moron!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Provide a link, TM, or you are a liar.  

Never mind, You are a 

Immie


----------



## Claudette

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
Click to expand...


You evidently don't follow my posts to closely there TM. 

If you did you would know I think both parties suck and have said so many times. 

I do lean right but unlike a left wing leaner like you, I can see both sides of an issue. I don't have a problem saying the Reps suck just as bad as the Dems do. 

You can't. If its Rep or Right it gets the blame in your book. 

You conveniently disregard the bs that the left is doing.  You kinda sorta forgot that the Dems have controlled Congress since 2006. 

Was WS blamelss, no. But they sure had plenty of help from the Clowns in congress. Both parties. 

If you think Obama and his left wing agenda is the answer. Well. I think your in for a rude awakening when this HC BS has to be payed for. 

You and hubby better hang onto your wallets TM. 

Mayby you should put your money in mayonaise jars. I plan to. LOL


----------



## boedicca

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...




TM really is one of the most hateful people I've ever encountered on the internets.


----------



## Immanuel

Claudette said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You evidently don't follow my posts to closely there TM.
> 
> If you did you would know I think both parties suck and have said so many times.
> 
> I do lean right but unlike a left wing leaner like you, I can see both sides of an issue. I don't have a problem saying the Reps suck just as bad as the Dems do.
> 
> You can't. If its Rep or Right it gets the blame in your book.
> 
> You conveniently disregard the bs that the left is doing.  You kinda sorta forgot that the Dems have controlled Congress since 2006.
> 
> Was WS blamelss, no. But they sure had plenty of help from the Clowns in congress. Both parties.
> 
> If you think Obama and his left wing agenda is the answer. Well. I think your in for a rude awakening when this HC BS has to be payed for.
> 
> You and hubby better hang onto your wallets TM.
> 
> Mayby you should put your money in mayonaise jars. I plan to. LOL
Click to expand...


She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.

Immie


----------



## boedicca

Immanuel said:


> She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.
> 
> Immie




That hasn't stopped her after the uncountable other times she's been proven to be a LYANG LAIR WOO LIAIRS!


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


It was an old joke to point out to you that asking me why I hate democracy is just the same as asking you that.

I have done nothing but defend democracy ever sense you have known me.

I appologise to you if you thought it was a real question.

Take my husband, please


----------



## boedicca

^^^ And Right On Cue....

Bada Bing.


----------



## midcan5

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that &#8220;social capital&#8221; is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. &#8220;On moral grounds,&#8221; Simon added, &#8220;we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.&#8221; Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it."  Peter Singer

Add this back:  http://bostonreview.net/BR21.1/wolff.php

The rich get rich because of their merit.

Inequality on the March - Project Syndicate


----------



## Truthmatters

Immanuel said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You evidently don't follow my posts to closely there TM.
> 
> If you did you would know I think both parties suck and have said so many times.
> 
> I do lean right but unlike a left wing leaner like you, I can see both sides of an issue. I don't have a problem saying the Reps suck just as bad as the Dems do.
> 
> You can't. If its Rep or Right it gets the blame in your book.
> 
> You conveniently disregard the bs that the left is doing.  You kinda sorta forgot that the Dems have controlled Congress since 2006.
> 
> Was WS blamelss, no. But they sure had plenty of help from the Clowns in congress. Both parties.
> 
> If you think Obama and his left wing agenda is the answer. Well. I think your in for a rude awakening when this HC BS has to be payed for.
> 
> You and hubby better hang onto your wallets TM.
> 
> Mayby you should put your money in mayonaise jars. I plan to. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie please go get me the post that proves I lied about anything.


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't stopped her after the uncountable other times she's been proven to be a LYANG LAIR WOO LIAIRS!
Click to expand...


Could you go get an example of your claim?


----------



## Claudette

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


See what I mean Immie???


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an old joke to point out to you that asking me why I hate democracy is just the same as asking you that.
> 
> I have done nothing but defend democracy ever sense you have known me.
> 
> I appologise to you if you thought it was a real question.
> 
> Take my husband, please
Click to expand...


Apology accepted.

Take your husband please?  What does that mean?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You evidently don't follow my posts to closely there TM.
> 
> If you did you would know I think both parties suck and have said so many times.
> 
> I do lean right but unlike a left wing leaner like you, I can see both sides of an issue. I don't have a problem saying the Reps suck just as bad as the Dems do.
> 
> You can't. If its Rep or Right it gets the blame in your book.
> 
> You conveniently disregard the bs that the left is doing.  You kinda sorta forgot that the Dems have controlled Congress since 2006.
> 
> Was WS blamelss, no. But they sure had plenty of help from the Clowns in congress. Both parties.
> 
> If you think Obama and his left wing agenda is the answer. Well. I think your in for a rude awakening when this HC BS has to be payed for.
> 
> You and hubby better hang onto your wallets TM.
> 
> Mayby you should put your money in mayonaise jars. I plan to. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie please go get me the post that proves I lied about anything.
Click to expand...




Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This us?  What does that mean?
> 
> And yes, I was defending you.  We don't know how much you give to charity.  It is also none of our business.  I have never brought up your giving to charity and I believe it to be inappropriate for anyone to do so.
> 
> Yes, I was defending you.  That is your private business and no one should question you on it.
> 
> It sure the hell was defending you!
> 
> What did you want me to claim in your defense?  That you gave 40% of your income to the poor?  I could not do that since I have no idea what you give.  Instead, I told them they were wrong for broaching the subject.
> 
> This us?  What the hell does that mean?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about not joining in on the fucking stupidity that anyone who is a democrat should never accumulate enough wealth to secure their old age and should instead live at only a subsistance level to give everything beyond that to charity?*
Click to expand...


That was a flat out lie!!! I never made such a statement.  Never have and don't believe that to be true so I never would made that statement.

If you can't show a quote as to me saying that, then you are a liar.

Immie


----------



## Vel

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
Click to expand...




And who is it exactly that forces people to invest in Wall Street?


----------



## Wicked Jester

So, is Obama going to return the over 900 grand in campaign contributions he received from GS?

Hell fucking no that hyporitical moron won't!

We all know what that sleazy lil' bastard is all about.


----------



## Yurt

apparently over half a BILLION dollars for one person's presidential campaign is not enough money....and is perfectly ok


----------



## saveliberty

Immanuel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you had been avoiding answering my question about why you hate Democracy.  Finally after I asked three times, you more or less answered it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Earned me a well deserved infraction.  I suspect the powers that be are a fair bunch.


----------



## The T

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.


 
Correct. it is no one's business. Obama's remarks are about as un-American as they get.


----------



## Wicked Jester

saveliberty said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> Content removed...It has been determined by the USMB powers that be that this particular example of the double bind is not allowed.
> 
> ~Dude*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you
> 
> What is that rule about bringing other people's family into the threads?
> 
> Think I'll ask to have you banned.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earned me a well deserved infraction.  I suspect the powers that be are a fair bunch.
Click to expand...

Depends who it is.


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's been proven to be a liar in this thread and she knows it.  She won't be back.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't stopped her after the uncountable other times she's been proven to be a LYANG LAIR WOO LIAIRS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you go get an example of your claim?
Click to expand...



Go to your profile.  Select the statistics tab.   Click on Find All Posts by Truthmatters.

There you will find all the examples of how you are a LYANG LAIR WOO LIAIRS.


----------



## mudwhistle

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?



This isn't China lady...this is America. 

Obama is not a motherfucken king.

He can't tell anyone how much they can make.


If you want to live somewhere that the leader can tell the rich that.....move the fuck out.


----------



## oreo

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.




Yeah--I watched the video on this--I did not take it to mean--just Wall streeters--he specifically refers to _goods and services _also.

OK--so then--is he suggesting that government should mandate when someone has made enough money--

What about the non wall streeter--like *Bill Gates a multi-billionair*--and the reason for the fantastic economy in the 1990's.  Is Obama to say to him O.K. Bill You've made enough money--so I want you to quit stimulating the economy with your new products--stop hiring--stop growing--doggonit--you've made enough.

Simply put--_Obama had another Joe the Plumber statement._  He again reveals himself as to who he really is--which is a *socialist.*


----------



## boedicca

oreo said:


> Simply put--_Obama had another Joe the Plumber statement._  He again reveals himself as to who he really is--which is a *socialist.*




You got that right.   This is why he Needs The Teleprompter:  to keep him "on script".

Whenever he ad libs, he reveals just how far left and anti-mainstream American he really is.


----------



## txlonghorn

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the part that I don't understand how you are missing the BIGGER picture.  If our president decides it is time to control how much money someone makes, what will keep him from doing it to someone else?  What will keep him from systematically capping other industries...(insurance co's, auto makers, oil co's...).
> 
> You need to understand that this isn't about protecting Wall Street scum....this is about protecting ANYONE who has potential to make more money than the next guy.
> 
> 
> to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
Click to expand...



Who's gonna protect me from getting fleeced by the government?  Every year I get fleeced on April 15th.  They lie to me every year about where my tax dollars are going.....


----------



## txlonghorn

oreo said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah--I watched the video on this--I did not take it to mean--just Wall streeters--he specifically refers to _goods and services _also.
> 
> OK--so then--is he suggesting that government should mandate when someone has made enough money--
> 
> What about the non wall streeter--like *Bill Gates a multi-billionair*--and the reason for the fantastic economy in the 1990's.  Is Obama to say to him O.K. Bill You've made enough money--so I want you to quit stimulating the economy with your new products--stop hiring--stop growing--doggonit--you've made enough.
> 
> Simply put--_Obama had another Joe the Plumber statement._  He again reveals himself as to who he really is--which is a *socialist.*
Click to expand...


YEAH!!!  What is "enough"?  And who the hell gave Mr. Obama the power to decide?  How much of this should we sit back and swallow?  If this goes the way he wants it to, who and what will keep him from doing this same thing to any or every other industry????

And FINALLY...when will the Obama apologizers realize he isn't much more than the Wizard of Oz...hiding behind the green curtain, pretending like he's the all knowing and powerful ruler.


----------



## mudwhistle

oreo said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah--I watched the video on this--I did not take it to mean--just Wall streeters--he specifically refers to _goods and services _also.
> 
> OK--so then--is he suggesting that government should mandate when someone has made enough money--
> 
> What about the non wall streeter--like *Bill Gates a multi-billionair*--and the reason for the fantastic economy in the 1990's.  Is Obama to say to him O.K. Bill You've made enough money--so I want you to quit stimulating the economy with your new products--stop hiring--stop growing--doggonit--you've made enough.
> 
> Simply put--_Obama had another Joe the Plumber statement._  He again reveals himself as to who he really is--which is a *socialist.*
Click to expand...


I wonder when Obama feels he or George Sorros have made enough money?


----------



## editec

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.


 
It becames the nation's business when the outcome of their foolish activities demanded that we bail them out or see the meltdown of our entire economy.

If that's what you call socialism, then I'm all for it.

Of course that is not socialism, but I would expect you to understand that.


----------



## Douger

CrusaderFrank said:


> He's not even a one-termer, you watch, Biden will be President.


What difference do you expect that to make ?
You have 535 motherfuckers that need to be taken out and strung up in trees.
The pRresident is a movie actor. Nothing more.


----------



## EriktheRed

CrusaderFrank said:


> He's not even a one-termer, you watch, Biden will be President.



Another one for the scrapbook.


----------



## mudwhistle

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not even a one-termer, you watch, Biden will be President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one for the scrapbook.
Click to expand...


Now that's a thread killer....why I can't figure out.


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It becames the nation's business when the outcome of their foolish activities demanded that we bail them out or see the meltdown of our entire economy.
> 
> If that's what you call socialism, then I'm all for it.
> 
> Of course that is not socialism, but I would expect you to understand that.
Click to expand...

In 2009 hedge fund honcho David Tepper took $4 billion from the economy, "...enough to pay the salaries of every police officer, firefighter, and public school teacher in Chicago."

"To anyone who cries socialism at the first hint of taxes, do you want to accept a system that says someone making a clever bet on the market is 50,000 times more valuable than the person who comes rushing to your house in an emergency?"

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism", government's First Principle was to socialize loss and privatize profit.

"Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat won't change that.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It becames the nation's business when the outcome of their foolish activities demanded that we bail them out or see the meltdown of our entire economy.
> 
> If that's what you call socialism, then I'm all for it.
> 
> Of course that is not socialism, but I would expect you to understand that.
Click to expand...


Problem is the Democrats and Obama in particular are constantly trying to encourage foolish activities just so they can cause a crisis. 

*Example:* Lending to prospective homeowners that can't afford to repay the loan. Telling insurance companies that they must insure people with preconditions. Telling them they must throw out all of the normal rules that have kept them in business. In other words.....*Throw caution to the wind and do what we say.*

*That is not only stupid but outright reckless behavior.*


----------



## editec

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It becames the nation's business when the outcome of their foolish activities demanded that we bail them out or see the meltdown of our entire economy.
> 
> If that's what you call socialism, then I'm all for it.
> 
> Of course that is not socialism, but I would expect you to understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is the Democrats and Obama in particular are constantly trying to encourage foolish activities just so they can cause a crisis.
> 
> *Example:* Lending to prospective homeowners that can't afford to repay the loan. Telling insurance companies that they must insure people with preconditions. Telling them they must throw out all of the normal rules that have kept them in business. In other words.....*Throw caution to the wind and do what we say.*
> 
> *That is not only stupid but outright reckless behavior.*
Click to expand...

 
Well I totally agree that the government has FAILED to protect us from the excesses of greed.

And I likewise agree that the Obama HC fix is going to fail, too.

Our government is captured by big CAPITAL and the outcomes are going to be disasterous for the nation as a whole.

We titter on the brink of economic disaster as a nation and yet we do nothing REAL to fix the SYSTEMIC economic injustice that this nation has become.

Our nation is plagued by cherished myths and outright lies, folks.

The belief that many of us have that there it is possible to have a market without government is one of those cherished myths.

Another is that we have inalienable rights.

Another is that we live in anything remotely approaching a meritocracy.

GIGO, folks. Garbage in Garbage out.

That's what we're dealing with.

The masters feed us a steady diet of propaganda and eventually we start to believe it.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> It becames the nation's business when the outcome of their foolish activities demanded that we bail them out or see the meltdown of our entire economy.
> 
> If that's what you call socialism, then I'm all for it.
> 
> Of course that is not socialism, but I would expect you to understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is the Democrats and Obama in particular are constantly trying to encourage foolish activities just so they can cause a crisis.
> 
> *Example:* Lending to prospective homeowners that can't afford to repay the loan. Telling insurance companies that they must insure people with preconditions. Telling them they must throw out all of the normal rules that have kept them in business. In other words.....*Throw caution to the wind and do what we say.*
> 
> *That is not only stupid but outright reckless behavior.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I totally agree that the government has FAILED to protect us from the excesses of greed.
> 
> And I likewise agree that the Obama HC fix is going to fail, too.
> 
> Our government is captured by big CAPITAL and the outcomes are going to be disasterous for the nation as a whole.
> 
> We titter on the brink of economic disaster as a nation and yet we do nothing REAL to fix the SYSTEMIC economic injustice that this nation has become.
> 
> Our nation is plagued by cherished myths and outright lies, folks.
> 
> The belief that many of us have that there it is possible to have a market without government is one of those cherished myths.
> 
> Another is that we have inalienable rights.
> 
> Another is that we live in anything remotely approaching a meritocracy.
> 
> GIGO, folks. Garbage in Garbage out.
> 
> That's what we're dealing with.
> 
> The masters feed us a steady diet of propaganda and eventually we start to believe it.
Click to expand...


I'm not gonna take that cynical approach.

I think the rules are fair for the most part...the problem is when people conspire to get around them. You know...*lawyers and rich folks like Obama and friends.*


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All about his business you little faggot.  He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."
Click to expand...


The U.S. government is the NUMBER ONE corporation in this country STEALING money and misusing it.  And this definitely IS our business.  He should practice what he preaches.  When does the government steal 'enough' from its citizens?


----------



## mudwhistle

Newby said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All about his business you little faggot.  He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. government is the NUMBER ONE corporation in this country STEALING money and misusing it.  And this definitely IS our business.  He should practice what he preaches.  When does the government steal 'enough' from its citizens?
Click to expand...


The government could be investing our cash in the market or something but instead choose to simply take it from us and spend it any way they see fit. They don't produce a product...they don't serve a useful purpose other then act as a burden on taxpayers.


----------



## Newby

Truthmatters said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand philosophy which is why you worship Rand.
> 
> To suggest no one who wants life in America to be decent for all has to forgo ANY building of their own wealth is a fucking idiots arguement.
> 
> *Why dont you go lie to your neighbor so you can steal his savings?*
> 
> That is what you are defending when you defend these assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, that sounds like the socialist's idea of a perfect world--the redistribution of wealth by force.  It seems more in line with what the Democrats and Obama would be scheming to attempt than Boedicca.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because you are a partisan hack does it sound like that to you.
> 
> You guys keep it up , these poor betrodden wall street billionares need all the support they can get because the vast majority of Americans are still trying to pull the knife out of their backs that these assholes told them was a gift.
Click to expand...


What your blinders fail to let you see is that Obama and the US government are NO different.


----------



## Newby

Truthmatters said:


> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?



It's not about how much money anyone on Wall Street or anywhere else has made.  If laws were broken, then there should be justice.  The point is that the US Government, no matter who sits in the Whitehouse, does not have the right to determine how much money ANYONE in this country can make. Period.


----------



## Newby

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in regards to this line of attack, we don't have a clue how much TM and her family give to charity.  So, I personally don't feel this line of attack is fair.
> 
> But, I still want to know why she hates Democracy so much.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
Click to expand...


What laws were broken?  Why aren't they being charged with a crime?  Last time I looked, making too much money was not a crime.


----------



## 007

obama must really be unhappy with his Presidency at this point. He appears to be doing everything in his power to make certain he is NOT reelected.

Everything he say's and does is WRONG.


----------



## mudwhistle

Newby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right Immie.
> 
> But its kinda hard to fly back at such a partisan person as she is. She blames Reps and the right for everything while conveniently forgetting that the left is equally to blame. Parisan .
> 
> TM is beyond the pale in my book. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know what pale is, Where on this site have you EVER deviated from the right wing talking points?
> 
> 
> Immie its you people who constantly refuse to even call this country a democracy.
> 
> Keep defending the wall street assholes who fucked us on purpose to make money off us a second time and see how that works for your party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws were broken?  Why aren't they being charged with a crime?  Last time I looked, making too much money was not a crime.
Click to expand...


If you haven't been watching all of these years....these people don't need a crime to make an accusation.

This is their bread & butter.

They make a living doing this to people and businesses.

I'm way past my bull-shit level on this. It seems like it's a constant thing with Democrats in Washington. The only reason they do it is because they have enough people that live here that support this kind of activity...regardless of how nasty and deceptive it is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama and the Dems are doing all they can to kill NYC. It's so funny to watch the NY Congressional delegation sit by and say "I was only following orders"


----------



## Si modo

This statement pretty much sums up Obama's desire to redistribute wealth, like most of us already knew.  He's a good little socialist.


----------



## editec

mudwhistle said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All about his business you little faggot. He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. government is the NUMBER ONE corporation in this country STEALING money and misusing it. And this definitely IS our business. He should practice what he preaches. When does the government steal 'enough' from its citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government could be investing our cash in the market or something but instead choose to simply take it from us and spend it any way they see fit. They don't produce a product...*they don't serve a useful purpose other then act as a burden on taxpayers*.
Click to expand...

 
So you won't mind then when we shut down the military, right?

And you won't mind when we close the veterans  hospitals either, right?

And who needs courts?

Or roads?

Or a border patrol?

Seriously, you're overstating your case, I think.


----------



## saveliberty

Without wealth creation, there is no wealth redistribution.


----------



## Si modo

saveliberty said:


> Without wealth creation, there is no wealth redistribution.


Thus one of the fundamental flaws in socialist ideology.  It is unsustainable in design.


----------



## Claudette

You can never make too much money in my book. LOL

We all know there are some pretty sneaky folks out there who will do anything they can do to  make as much as they can. There are some pretty high flyers out there  also who live to  take the big risks. 

Wonder why no one on the left is screaming about Chryslers bond and shareholders? These people   had 401's and pensions invested in Chrysler. People who owned shares in Chrysler.Those folks got  stiffed by Obama?? They got stiffed and the Unions made out like bandits. Highway Robbery with Govt approval. 

Hows that any different from anything going on on  Wall St ???


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. government is the NUMBER ONE corporation in this country STEALING money and misusing it. And this definitely IS our business. He should practice what he preaches. When does the government steal 'enough' from its citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government could be investing our cash in the market or something but instead choose to simply take it from us and spend it any way they see fit. They don't produce a product...*they don't serve a useful purpose other then act as a burden on taxpayers*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you won't mind then when we shut down the military, right?
> 
> And you won't mind when we close the veterans  hospitals either, right?
> 
> And who needs courts?
> 
> Or roads?
> 
> Or a border patrol?
> 
> Seriously, you're overstating your case, I think.
Click to expand...


Hey...what a great idea...turn all of that shit over to the states.

The feds aren't trustworthy...so who needs em.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

I'm not surprised by his remarks. Socialists/Progressives really do think that way. Vote em all out. Make 2010 count people.


----------



## boedicca

Pale Rider said:


> obama must really be unhappy with his Presidency at this point. He appears to be doing everything in his power to make certain he is NOT reelected.
> 
> Everything he say's and does is WRONG.




That attitude is a bit too complacent - and assumes that the Dems won't engage in voter fraud (ACORN) and creation (amnesty for illegal aliens) to manipulate the 2012 election results.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?



So you think nothing of a President appointing himself king and making stupid satements regarding how much money one can make?  Seems to me he's made a bundle and hasn't really done much for it.  And you know what?  Who cares.  This is America.


----------



## boedicca

Claudette said:


> You can never make too much money in my book. LOL
> 
> We all know there are some pretty sneaky folks out there who will do anything they can do to  make as much as they can. There are some pretty high flyers out there  also who live to  take the big risks.
> 
> Wonder why no one on the left is screaming about Chryslers bond and shareholders? These people   had 401's and pensions invested in Chrysler. People who owned shares in Chrysler.Those folks got  stiffed by Obama?? They got stiffed and the Unions made out like bandits. Highway Robbery with Govt approval.
> 
> Hows that any different from anything going on on  Wall St ???





There's another aspect to all of this as well.  

Because Obamanomics depends so much on increasing government debt, the Feds are desperate to hold down interest rates.   Many retirees with modest means keep their money in interest bearing CDs.   With interest rates near zero, their meager incomes have collapsed.


----------



## Sarah G

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?



The Kennedys weren't that rich.  I think that's why Jackie married Onasis.  The Kennedys were more influential than rich.

Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo  of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year.  They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.

Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.

It's obscene.


----------



## Immanuel

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedys weren't that rich.  I think that's why Jackie married Onasis.  The Kennedys were more influential than rich.
> 
> Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo  of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year.  They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.
> 
> Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.
> 
> It's obscene.
Click to expand...


While I agree with you that no one is worth that kind of money, I will say that it is not President Obama's place to comment on it or to regulate it.  The responsibility lies on the shareholders of Goldman Sachs and the other corporations that pay those kinds of bonuses and the salaries in general.

Immie


----------



## Sarah G

I'm looking down the page here at some of the responses, it's mostly cons defending these opportunists.  As if you all ever made that kind of money together or ever hope to.  It's a select few and the rest of you can eat dirt for all they care.

Stop pretending they are getting rich and taking you with them..


----------



## boedicca

Using your thinking, then we should question everyone's pay:

_Top earning rappers of 2009

- Jay-Z - 35 Million
- Diddy - 30 Million
- Kanye West - 25 Million
- 50 Cent - 20 Million
- Akon - 20 Million
- Lil Wayne - 18 Million
- Timbaland - 17 Million
- Pharrell - 16 Million
- T-Pain - 15 Million
- Eminem - 14 Million_


We have two choices, leaving compensation arrangements and earning power to the companies and individuals involved - or living in a Pea Green With Envy Society in which anyone who is better off than someone who feels aggrieved by others' success is a target.


----------



## Sarah G

Immanuel said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedys weren't that rich.  I think that's why Jackie married Onasis.  The Kennedys were more influential than rich.
> 
> Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo  of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year.  They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.
> 
> Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.
> 
> It's obscene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree with you that no one is worth that kind of money, I will say that it is not President Obama's place to comment on it or to regulate it.  The responsibility lies on the shareholders of Goldman Sachs and the other corporations that pay those kinds of bonuses and the salaries in general.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I actually agree with his opinion and he does have a place discussing too big to fail financial institutions.  Not only should they be regulated, they should be broken up.  

These people took bailout money.


----------



## 007

boedicca said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama must really be unhappy with his Presidency at this point. He appears to be doing everything in his power to make certain he is NOT reelected.
> 
> Everything he say's and does is WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That attitude is a bit too complacent - and assumes that the Dems won't engage in voter fraud (ACORN) and creation (amnesty for illegal aliens) to manipulate the 2012 election results.
Click to expand...


Ya all acorn did was change their name and morph into something else, but I doubt the dems will get amnesty. But regardless, obama has pissed off just about every sect in America at some point or another. I don't think little purple lips has an ice cubes chance in hell of being a two term President, especially now since Arizona won't even put him on the ballot unless he comes up with a REAL birth certificate.


----------



## Immanuel

Sarah G said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedys weren't that rich.  I think that's why Jackie married Onasis.  The Kennedys were more influential than rich.
> 
> Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo  of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year.  They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.
> 
> Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.
> 
> It's obscene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with you that no one is worth that kind of money, I will say that it is not President Obama's place to comment on it or to regulate it.  The responsibility lies on the shareholders of Goldman Sachs and the other corporations that pay those kinds of bonuses and the salaries in general.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually agree with his opinion and he does have a place discussing too big to fail financial institutions.  Not only should they be regulated, they should be broken up.
> 
> These people took bailout money.
Click to expand...


It does not surprise me that you agree with him and that you and I disagree.

The Feds should not have offered that Bailout money in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with regulation, but I do have a problem with Nationalization.

What would breaking them up accomplish in your estimation?

Immie


----------



## boedicca

Pale Rider said:


> Ya all acorn did was change their name and morph into something else, but I doubt the dems will get amnesty. But regardless, obama has pissed off just about every sect in America at some point or another. I don't think little purple lips has an ice cubes chance in hell of being a two term President, especially now since Arizona won't even put him on the ballot unless he comes up with a REAL birth certificate.




They have Motor Voter - which enables a great deal of voter fraud.


----------



## driveby

HUGGY said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All about his business you little faggot.  He misspoke.. what he should have said is "At a certain point you have STOLEN enough money."
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ, what a bitch statement .....


----------



## driveby

Truthmatters said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
Click to expand...


You're a proud capitalist ?

No, you're either a compulsive liar or you're bi-polar .......


----------



## Immanuel

driveby said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly Gee TM. You really oughta give two of your three houses to the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> You know. The poor and downtrodden that need the help of the taxpayer because they kinda sorta forgot to get a job.
> 
> While your at it. You and hubby could open up your bank account and spread YOUR wealth to all those folks who truly need a helping hand.
> 
> After all. Thats the Agenda the Dems and your glorious leader is pushing.
> 
> Just think. You could be on the ground floor. Willing to spread your wealth to help the poor and downtrodden.
> 
> Just think how good you will feel knowing your helping out.
> 
> God. Gag me. Jeeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think you would be glad I am making sure I dont need to suck off the tit of the government?
> 
> 
> Now how many votes do you think this idiots tact will win you guys HUH?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend its good for the country to allow the wall street people to have this country by the throat and able to do what they just did to us at will.
> 
> 
> Instead you idiots are insulting me for being a good capitalist and acting in a responsible way in my life.
> 
> 
> I am a caplitalist and have always been one the fact that the right likes to live in the midst of a circle jerk of lies that any democrat is merely a socalist does not make it fact it just makes your face all slimey.
> 
> 
> I am proud of my success and am proud of being a capitalist. Your LIES about me and my beliefs does not change my beliefs now does it.
> 
> 
> Why dont you go sell everything you own and send it to a wall street banker if you are sooo concerned about these poor things having their incomes restained to protect the MILLIONS  of other Americans who live here from getting fleeced every couple of years which is what happened historially in this country right up until we implemented Glass steagal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a proud capitalist ?
> 
> No, you're either a compulsive liar or you're bi-polar .......
Click to expand...


Schizophrenic? 

Immie


----------



## johnrocks

He made 5 million last year...hypocrite.


----------



## johnrocks

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedys weren't that rich.  I think that's why Jackie married Onasis.  The Kennedys were more influential than rich.
> 
> Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo  of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year.  They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.
> 
> Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.
> 
> It's obscene.
Click to expand...


How did Obama vote on the Wall Street bailouts as Senator?


----------



## AllieBaba

Why on earth didn't the Obama's give back the money Michelle took in order to send poor patients in her ER to another hospital?

$317,000 a year for dumping patients, and catering to those with more money at the University of Chicago Medical Center. 

Why didn't Obama think that was too much?


----------



## mudwhistle

I wonder how many of Obama's friends and supporters have "made enough money".

Oprah is one of the riches women in the world. 
James Cameron makes millions off of his pictures.
Warren Buffet...billions.
George Sorros...ditto.
Obama himself made over $5,000,000.00 last year that we know of.

It seems that Obama feels only he and his friends really deserve to make as much money as they want. *Everyone else seems to have made enough.*

It really seems strange for a man who lives so extravagantly to be talking about somebody else having enough or too much money to suit him, don't you think? 



> In the Marxist environment there are always exceptions to the rules that the state imposes on the general population.  Obama would not be ruffling the feathers of the wealthy/elite/leftist Oprah because she fits into the Marxists' plan which promotes the equalizing of the masses (that is, all of them are poor) while allowing for uncapped profits by the rulers and cronies of the state.
> 
> To a thinking person, this whole affair of Obama and Oprah not being together and on message at first provokes confusion, but after some contemplation, the apparent dichotomy actually makes sense.  The two big O's live split lives.  Each has a public persona which varies from his or her private persona.  The public persona is not culpable for the mistakes or misdeeds of the private persona, and vice versa.
> 
> Therefore, Obama will continue to make outrageous statements completely contrary to Americanism, and get away with it.  Oprah will continue to make as much money as she wants, and rightly so, but continue to back her leftist president because he's good for business.  The left hand could care less about what the right hand is doing as long as the dialectic doesn't require truth as an end result.



American Thinker Blog: Has Oprah 'made enough money' yet?


----------



## Zoom-boing

mudwhistle said:


> I wonder how many of Obama's friends and supporters have "made enough money".
> 
> Oprah is one of the riches women in the world.
> James Cameron makes millions off of his pictures.
> Warren Buffet...billions.
> George Sorros...ditto.
> Obama himself made over $5,000,000.00 last year that we know of.
> 
> It seems that Obama feels only he and his friends really deserve to make as much money as they want. Everyone else seems to have made enough.
> 
> *It really seems strange for a man who lives so extravagantly to be talking about somebody else having enough or too much money to suit him, don't you think? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Marxist environment there are always exceptions to the rules that the state imposes on the general population.  Obama would not be ruffling the feathers of the wealthy/elite/leftist Oprah because she fits into the Marxists' plan which promotes the equalizing of the masses (that is, all of them are poor) while allowing for uncapped profits by the rulers and cronies of the state.
> 
> To a thinking person, this whole affair of Obama and Oprah not being together and on message at first provokes confusion, but after some contemplation, the apparent dichotomy actually makes sense.  The two big O's live split lives.  Each has a public persona which varies from his or her private persona.  The public persona is not culpable for the mistakes or misdeeds of the private persona, and vice versa.
> 
> Therefore, Obama will continue to make outrageous statements completely contrary to Americanism, and get away with it.  Oprah will continue to make as much money as she wants, and rightly so, but continue to back her leftist president because he's good for business.  The left hand could care less about what the right hand is doing as long as the dialectic doesn't require truth as an end result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Thinker Blog: Has Oprah 'made enough money' yet?
Click to expand...



This is Obama's m.o, do as I say not as I do.  To understand this guy's true ideology and mind-set on things all you have to do is get him to open his pie hole off-prompter.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

He should have said "I do think at some point, you are going to see through my charade."


----------



## JBeukema

Those who can generate wealth for themselves without exploiting and victimizing others should be able to enjoy their fruits of their labour.

Besides, look at it pragmatically:  stifiling wealth creation aids noone, while encouraging the creation of greater wealth ensures a surplus that can be used to aid the most disadvantaged (old, disabled, infirm, etc) without causing detriment to others in the process. It's the same principle as encouraging practices that result in surplus crops, allowing you to aid the sick and elderly while those who helped generate the surplus can live comfortably as a result of their labour.


----------



## mudwhistle

JBeukema said:


> Those who can generate wealth for themselves without exploiting and victimizing others should be able to enjoy their fruits of their labour.
> 
> Besides, look at it pragmatically:  stifiling wealth creation aids noone, while encouraging the creation of greater wealth ensures a surplus that can be used to aid the most disadvantaged (old, disabled, infirm, etc) without causing detriment to others in the process. It's the same principle as encouraging practices that result in surplus crops, allowing you to aid the sick and elderly while those who helped generate the surplus can live comfortably as a result of their labour.



So what you're saying is anyone who lends money to people so they can buy things like homes, cars, whatever is victimizing everyone....but someone who has a talk-show that tells us a bunch of bogus shit about how we should live our lives isn't?

Anyone who sells us our gas for our cars and provides us with electricity is victimizing us but those who make a film that sucks yet makes millions isn't.

Then those who support Democrats who made billions in the last year off of betting that the market would fail aren't victimizing us. [George Soros and Warren Buffet]

It all really depends on whom they support, not what they really do. Right?


----------



## QUENTIN

I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene. 

Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.

Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> .... America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. ....


That simply isn't true.


----------



## Paulie

QUENTIN said:


> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.
> 
> Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.
> 
> Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.



Some of America's richest men are also some of the biggest philanthropists.


----------



## code1211

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. ....
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...



This is one of those truisms that the Left recklessly throws around.  These things don't need to be true to gain popularity.  They need only support the pardigm.


----------



## mudwhistle

QUENTIN said:


> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. *America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. *To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.
> 
> Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.
> 
> Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.



Wonder where you got this idea from?

Mexico has the haves and the have-nots.

Most Mexicans make about $500 a year while many of the wealthy have millions...even billions. Currently the richest man in the world is a Mexican.

Need I remind you the reason why folks from Mexico and Central America come here in the first place.

Yes...it's because of our standard of living. The same one you feel like bitching about.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. ....
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...


Wait, what's your argument? That Panama or Hong Kong or perhaps Namibia is a developed country? The list you provided demonstrates that America has the highest income inequality of any developed country, it proves my argument. Did you read it?

A strong enough case can be made for including Hong Kong in the "industrialized" or "developed" or "post-industrial" world that that would mean one tiny country partially ruled by China has an even higher degree of income inequality than we do, so okay, we're #2. Was that your point? We're #2 and not #1 so it renders the incredible disparity moot somehow?



			
				code1211 said:
			
		

> This is one of those truisms that the Left recklessly throws around.  These things don't need to be true to gain popularity.  They need only support the pardigm.



Or for the facts to support it, as they do. America's income disparity on the Gini index is 45, higher than any other industrialized nation save perhaps Hong Kong.

mudwhistle,

Mexico is not an industrialized nation. Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. ....
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what's your argument? That Panama or Hong Kong or perhaps Namibia is a developed country? The list you provided demonstrates that America has the highest income inequality of any developed country, it proves my argument. Did you read it?
> 
> A strong enough case can be made for including Hong Kong in the "industrialized" or "developed" or "post-industrial" world that that would mean one tiny country partially ruled by China has an even higher degree of income inequality than we do, so okay, we're #2. Was that your point? We're #2 and not #1 so it renders the incredible disparity moot somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those truisms that the Left recklessly throws around.  These things don't need to be true to gain popularity.  They need only support the pardigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or for the facts to support it, as they do. America's income disparity on the Gini index is 45, higher than any other industrialized nation save perhaps Hong Kong.
> 
> mudwhistle,
> 
> Mexico is not an industrialized nation. Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)

Again, your statement simply is not true.


----------



## Gunny

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be sweet, I dont work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job  before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
Click to expand...


You are BEYOND stupid.  The only one that's fucking this country is that fuckwit YOU and your retarded ilk put in office.


----------



## The T

johnrocks said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he tell that to George Soros or the Kennedy's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedys weren't that rich. I think that's why Jackie married Onasis. The Kennedys were more influential than rich.
> 
> Wall street is different, they took bailouts and still the ceo of Goldman Sachs took a $9,000,000 bonus last year. They gave this to him for screwing their clients especially hard.
> 
> Nobody is worth that kind of bonus money and we know that isn't all they ever get.
> 
> It's obscene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Obama vote on the Wall Street bailouts as Senator?
Click to expand...

 
And is what Obama made last year 'Obscene'?


----------



## The T

Gunny said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Us pro life men usually hear from you libs that we are men and don't have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
> 
> How about you get a job before deciding how much you think someone else should make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you fuck off and dont tell me and my husband how to live.
> 
> He makes enough money for my entire family to live quite fucking well.
> 
> BTW I dont work but I do bring in money legally by managing our rental property.
> 
> Remember when the right used to praise people for putting family first?
> 
> These assholes you are defending FUCKED THIS COUNTRY!
> 
> Have fun defending these assholes "right" to rip off the American people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are BEYOND stupid. The only one that's fucking this country is that fuckwit YOU and your retarded ilk put in office.
Click to expand...

 
Boggles the mind.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what's your argument? That Panama or Hong Kong or perhaps Namibia is a developed country? The list you provided demonstrates that America has the highest income inequality of any developed country, it proves my argument. Did you read it?
> 
> A strong enough case can be made for including Hong Kong in the "industrialized" or "developed" or "post-industrial" world that that would mean one tiny country partially ruled by China has an even higher degree of income inequality than we do, so okay, we're #2. Was that your point? We're #2 and not #1 so it renders the incredible disparity moot somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those truisms that the Left recklessly throws around.  These things don't need to be true to gain popularity.  They need only support the pardigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or for the facts to support it, as they do. America's income disparity on the Gini index is 45, higher than any other industrialized nation save perhaps Hong Kong.
> 
> mudwhistle,
> 
> Mexico is not an industrialized nation. Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)
> 
> Again, your statement simply is not true.
Click to expand...


Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries.  They are both, in fact, considered develop*ing* countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?


----------



## Mr Natural

If you have to screw your clients to make more, then you've probably have already made enough.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what's your argument? That Panama or Hong Kong or perhaps Namibia is a developed country? The list you provided demonstrates that America has the highest income inequality of any developed country, it proves my argument. Did you read it?
> 
> A strong enough case can be made for including Hong Kong in the "industrialized" or "developed" or "post-industrial" world that that would mean one tiny country partially ruled by China has an even higher degree of income inequality than we do, so okay, we're #2. Was that your point? We're #2 and not #1 so it renders the incredible disparity moot somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> Or for the facts to support it, as they do. America's income disparity on the Gini index is 45, higher than any other industrialized nation save perhaps Hong Kong.
> 
> mudwhistle,
> 
> Mexico is not an industrialized nation. Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)
> 
> Again, your statement simply is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries.  They are both, in fact, considered develop*ing* countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?
Click to expand...

You are just being willfully ignorant.  I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong.  The USA does *not* have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.

Deal with it.


----------



## LuckyDan

I would have thought at a certain pont this dickhead would have had enuogh of himself.

Honestly, BO voters: What *the FUCK* were you thinking?


----------



## JBeukema

mudwhistle said:


> So what you're saying is anyone who lends money to people so they can buy things like homes, cars, whatever is victimizing everyone....but someone who has a talk-show that tells us a bunch of bogus shit about how we should live our lives isn't?



huh?

Where the blazes did you get that?





> Anyone who sells us our gas for our cars and provides us with electricity is victimizing us but those who make a film that sucks yet makes millions isn't.




What the fuck are you babbling about?



> It all really depends on whom they support, not what they really do. Right?


Seriously, what the hell are you babbling about?


----------



## JBeukema

QUENTIN said:


> To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.


Are there millions without food in America?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Let's just end this right here.

There is no such thing as earning too much money. period.


----------



## Toro

Its a legitimate question about whether or not it is reasonable to allow the creation of products that arguably have zero social value, or substantially less value, so that people can make literally billions of dollars on these products, as John Paulson did.

As someone who engages in speculation, I don't want my options limited. But I also don't want products that benefit the few and hurt the many.


----------



## Toro

QUENTIN said:


> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.



I don't have a problem with giving billionaires $100 million bonuses.  I do have a problem paying enormous amounts of money to people who exist because of the government, as much of Wall Street does, or to people who benefit because of lax corporate governance in this country.


----------



## LuckyDan

QUENTIN said:


> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus* while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene. *
> 
> Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.
> 
> Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.


 
_Millions_? Homeless? Starving? Dying?

Put down the _Daily Worker_ and get out of the house.


----------



## editec

What continues to astound me is the number of people who remain loyal to this system even knowing that its crooked.

_Only game in town,_ I guess.

The investor class was cheated, folks.

Thanks to the meltdown, the more affluent you were, they more likely you got screwed.

It wasn't socialism running Goldman, folks.

It wasn't capitalism, either, that these people did.

It was fraud.

But as long as we have half the population thinking capitalism is to blame, and the other thinking socialism is the problem, the criminal class continues to manipulate both government and big capital to their advantage.


----------



## Skull Pilot

What I don't understand is why people think they need investment brokers like GS when they can buy their own investments through Schwab, TD, E Trade, Fidelity etc etc and not have to pay some fat cat broker a dime.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

LuckyDan said:


> I would have thought at a certain pont this dickhead would have had enuogh of himself.
> 
> Honestly, BO voters: What *the FUCK* were you thinking?



Hope Change More Kool Aid


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Repeal the 16th Amendment.

Lets the States figure out how to fund The Blob

Personal income is just none of your fucking business, especially not the Federal governments business.

Again, repeal the 16th Amendment


----------



## code1211

Si modo said:


> [You are just being willfully ignorant.  I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong.  The USA does *not* have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.
> 
> Deal with it.




Just a thought in passing.

I would think that in every part of the world there are those with no income or wealth at all.  In every part of the world there is the "richest guy around".  If there is a big disparity, since the bottom by definition the bottom, the larger disparity must indicate a higher ceiling.

The only way to lower the disparity is to lower the ceiling.


----------



## Si modo

editec said:


> What continues to astound me is the number of people who remain loyal to this system even knowing that its crooked.
> 
> _Only game in town,_ I guess.
> 
> The investor class was cheated, folks.
> 
> Thanks to the meltdown, the more affluent you were, they more likely you got screwed.
> 
> It wasn't socialism running Goldman, folks.
> 
> It wasn't capitalism, either, that these people did.
> 
> It was fraud.
> 
> But as long as we have half the population thinking capitalism is to blame, and the other thinking socialism is the problem, the criminal class continues to manipulate both government and big capital to their advantage.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)
> 
> Again, your statement simply is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries.  They are both, in fact, considered develop*ing* countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just being willfully ignorant.  I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong.  The USA does *not* have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...


You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:



> Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".





> Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"





> The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *China*
> *Mexico*





> IMF Developed Countries:
> 
> Australia 	&#8226;  Germany 	&#8226;  Malta 	&#8226;  South Korea
> &#8226;  Austria 	&#8226;  Greece 	&#8226;  Netherlands 	&#8226;  Spain
> &#8226;  Belgium 	&#8226;  Hong Kong 	&#8226;  New Zealand 	&#8226;  Sweden
> &#8226;  Canada 	&#8226;  Iceland 	&#8226;  Norway 	&#8226;  Switzerland
> &#8226;  Cyprus 	&#8226;  Ireland 	&#8226;  Portugal 	&#8226;  Taiwan
> &#8226;  Czech Republic 	&#8226;  Israel 	&#8226;  San Marino[19] 	&#8226;  United Kingdom
> &#8226;  Denmark 	&#8226;  Italy 	&#8226;  Singapore 	&#8226;  United States
> &#8226;  Finland 	&#8226;  Japan 	&#8226;  Slovakia
> &#8226;  France 	&#8226;  Luxembourg 	&#8226;  Slovenia



Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2. 

You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong. 

Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is now most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.

In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity. 

There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.

About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.

Deal with it.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?

Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?

LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration. 

Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis



> Economists estimate that 1.8 million borrowers will lose their homes this year, up from 1.4 million last year



And yes, millions are without adequate food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2



> The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 35 million in June 2009, the highest number since the program began in 1962, with an average monthly benefit of $133.12 per person. As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.



And yes, millions are without medicine.

Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million



> The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.



It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.

And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.


----------



## chanel

Great editorial today.



> In fact, the $2.4 billion in total earnings of the *100 highest-paid CEOs*, regardless of industry, barely beat out the $2.1 billion of the *twenty-five best-compensated celebs* (living ones, that is). *Just seven of those 100 CEOs worked in the financial industry.
> *
> I dont begrudge Beyonce, Spielberg or Tiger  or the head of JP Morgan  the pay they receive. Nor do I begrudge Obama his $5.5 million in 2009 income  again, more than I and probably you.



Exactly who &#8216;makes enough money&#8217; in Obama&#8217;s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield


----------



## editec

Skull Pilot said:


> What I don't understand is why people think they need investment brokers like GS when they can buy their own investments through Schwab, TD, E Trade, Fidelity etc etc and not have to pay some fat cat broker a dime.


 
Because Goldman was the financial gambling organization that was taking the bets in this case.

They set the game up, knowing it was fixed.

At least that's the charge being brought against them.

And if that is true, and people do not go to prison for it, then you have to be nuts to invest in this country.

If we don't AT MINIMUM, make sure that the derivative casinos are on the level, then that is a doomed industry.

Some of you might object to government interference with business, but that's not what this is about.

This is about FRAUD, folks.

If the chrages are true, GOLDMAN is a GRIFTER..not  socialist, not  capitalist, just criminal.


----------



## boedicca

That's the wrong approach.

Derivatives (futures) have existed for ages.  Farmers use them to derisk prices they receive for crops; transportation companies use them to manage fuel prices (just two examples).   We all benefit from innovation in financial instruments that enable more efficient business activity.

Mortgages have also been sold in secondary markets for a long time.   CDOs were an innovation which enabled more mortgages to be done by facilitating a bigger after market.  Were they abused - yes.  Why - because the government socialized the risk.

A better solution is to move such instruments into an options exchange with standardized contracts and much improved transparency.  This is how the commodities futures work - people are willing to take long and short positions because they have a great deal of information available as to the sentiments of price movements.

As to Goldman being a grifter, the CDO transactions for which they are being investigated had a Very Willing Buyer who was seeking the riskiest instruments possible.

_Sophisticated Investor

Not just anyone invests in synthetic CDOs and other asset-backed securities. Buyers are limited to big, sophisticated investors. After all, IKB purchased $150 million worth of the bonds in the deal -- only a serious investor has that kind of cash to spend. This wasn't a case where Goldman cold-called a guy who works at a tire factory to trick him into buying a wacky security. IKB should have had the resources and motivation to understand what it was buying.

The Collateral Wasn't Misleading

IKB's sophistication wouldn't matter if Goldman lied to the German bank about what was in the portfolio that the bonds were based on. The SEC doesn't allege that. Instead, the complaint says that Goldman didn't disclose that a hedge fund manager, John Paulson, played a role in creating the pool of securities. While that may or may not be found to be material, it's hard to imagine how it would have made a difference to IKB. The collateral would have been the same either way, and IKB had the opportunity to perform its own analysis on the pool's potential performance. There's no input in a cash flow model for evaluating a CDO that takes into account the parties influencing the collateral pool's creation. 

(snip)

By Definition, IKB Knew a Short Existed

Finally, most news articles about the SEC case imply that if investors realized a big hedge fund had shorted the portfolio, then they would have thought twice about going long. In the case of a synthetic CDO, that's a nonsensical claim, because you can't create a synthetic CDO without also creating a short interest. The security we're talking about is derivative-like, because it references other securities. So in order to have long invertors profit if the portfolio does well, a short investor must pay up accordingly. The reverse works the same way -- so when investors like IKB lost money, Paulson profited. You need the two sides of the equation to balance. 
_

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...the-investors-goldman-allegedly-misled/39282/


----------



## editec

I wasn't fauliting derivatives generally, Boed.

I'll say it again...

*IF* Goldman was pressuring the bond risk assessment folks to understate the risk, *THEN* what Goldman did was a CRIME.

Sophisticated investors or NOT, *if* they were lied to ,* then* Goldman knowingly grifted those investors.


----------



## boedicca

Where has Goldman been charged with pressuring the bond risk assessment folks (do you mean the rating agencies)?

For large CDOs such as the ones IKB purchased, the buyer performs its own analysis.


----------



## Samson

chanel said:


> Great editorial today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the $2.4 billion in total earnings of the *100 highest-paid CEOs*, regardless of industry, barely beat out the $2.1 billion of the *twenty-five best-compensated celebs* (living ones, that is). *Just seven of those 100 CEOs worked in the financial industry.
> *
> I dont begrudge Beyonce, Spielberg or Tiger  or the head of JP Morgan  the pay they receive. Nor do I begrudge Obama his $5.5 million in 2009 income  again, more than I and probably you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly who makes enough money in Obamas eyes? | Kyle Wingfield
Click to expand...


For a guy who wanted "To be Clear, he sure did fuck up:



> I want to be clear, were not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success thats _fairly earned_._* I mean, I do think at a certain point youve made enough money*_. But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if youre providing a good product or youre providing a good service. We dont want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.



Again, as with his comment regarding the US being a Superpower, "whether we like it or not" he seems conflicted between what he WISHES his job was, and what it IS.



Having a President of the USA that needs to get a grip should be more than a little unsettling even for democrats


----------



## mudwhistle

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip. 

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings. 

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts. 

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them. 

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth. 

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

*In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.*


----------



## JBeukema

Toro said:


> Its a legitimate question about whether or not it is reasonable to allow the creation of products that arguably have zero social value, or substantially less value, so that people can make literally billions of dollars on these products, as John Paulson did.



Why should someone only be able to make a profit off of a product with 'social value'? Can you please define 'social value'? Does any given song or painting have 'social value'? What about wicker furniture, plastic gnomes, or a pizza? Who is to determine whether a given product [or service] has 'social value' and how are they to make that determination?



> As someone who engages in speculation, I don't want my options limited. But I also don't want products that benefit the few and hurt the many.


This goes back to what I said about exploiting people. This is why we have regulation in the first place, from the Muckrackers and the FDA to financial regulations and anti-trust laws. However, I still don't see how you 'social value' argument has any merit or serves to do anything but stifle any business you don't personally appreciate merely because you don't see any need for a given product.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries.  They are both, in fact, considered develop*ing* countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being willfully ignorant.  I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong.  The USA does *not* have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?
> 
> From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.
> 
> You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.
> 
> In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.
> 
> There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.
> 
> About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?
> 
> Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?
> 
> LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.
> 
> Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without adequate food.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 35 million in June 2009, the highest number since the program began in 1962, with an average monthly benefit of $133.12 per person. As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without medicine.
> 
> Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.
> 
> And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.
Click to expand...


Of course I called you an idiot.  You are.  Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).  I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.  

A lesson you and others should learn.  Then you wouldn't be idiots.  It's just that simple.


----------



## QUENTIN

mudwhistle said:


> Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.
> 
> I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.
> 
> You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.
> 
> China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.
> 
> Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.
> 
> A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.
> 
> *In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.*



There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly. 

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not. 

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them. 

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.




Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being willfully ignorant.  I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong.  The USA does *not* have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?
> 
> From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.
> 
> You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.
> 
> In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.
> 
> There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.
> 
> About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?
> 
> Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?
> 
> LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.
> 
> Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without adequate food.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without medicine.
> 
> Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.
> 
> And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I called you an idiot.  You are.  Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.
> 
> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).  I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.
> 
> A lesson you and others should learn.  Then you wouldn't be idiots.  It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*. 

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong. 

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?


----------



## Toro

JBeukema said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a legitimate question about whether or not it is reasonable to allow the creation of products that arguably have zero social value, or substantially less value, so that people can make literally billions of dollars on these products, as John Paulson did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should someone only be able to make a profit off of a product with 'social value'? Can you please define 'social value'? Does any given song or painting have 'social value'? What about wicker furniture, plastic gnomes, or a pizza? Who is to determine whether a given product [or service] has 'social value' and how are they to make that determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who engages in speculation, I don't want my options limited. But I also don't want products that benefit the few and hurt the many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This goes back to what I said about exploiting people. This is why we have regulation in the first place, from the Muckrackers and the FDA to financial regulations and anti-trust laws. However, I still don't see how you 'social value' argument has any merit or serves to do anything but stifle any business you don't personally appreciate merely because you don't see any need for a given product.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the phrase "social value" is the wrong one, but there are all sorts of activities that we as a society restrict because we see those activities as harmful to society in general.  A private citizen cannot buy and sell a nuclear weapon, for example.  We disallow the trafficking of illegal narcotics.  One may disagree with those restrictions but society has deemed it such that many activities are harmful to society.

I'm not saying that trading synthetic CDOs should be restricted.  I don't know the answer to that question.  All I'm saying is that it is reasonable to debate the issue.  Warren Buffett called these things "financial weapons of mass destruction."  George Soros said that "derivatives will end society as we know it."  These are two of the greatest investors of all time.  I think their concerns are not unreasonable because I can see how they could be right.


----------



## Toro

I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity.  I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.






What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world.  But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe.  In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.

BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state.  Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.


----------



## bucs90

Truthmatters said:


> Protecting the corprations from the people.
> 
> Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.
> 
> I think you need to work harder though.
> 
> You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.
> 
> You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.
> 
> Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?



Wow. "Protecting the corporations from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the corporations", aka, unions and socialist loons like Obama and Marx.

There is one thing you libtards never seem to realize: The corporations ARE THE PEOPLE.

You libiots seem to equate corporations with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a corporation, a business, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a corporation doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" corporations like Wal-Mart. And Hardees/Carl's Jr. And BP.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people own stock in them and make money from them. And other businesses share and trade with them. And thats how the economy works, with corporations earning, spending, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you lefties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite Obama stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Big Sugar Daddy government can fairly distribute the Obama stash to you.

So, when Obama says a corporation has "Made enough money", he's telling it's thousands of workers, and thousands of shareholders, and hundreds of businesses that company buys supplies and services from: No more. You have enough. The Obama stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my minions.

Sounds an awful lot like commun........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social fairness. There, thats better, right?


----------



## bucs90

Oh, and as for income disparity, it's nothing more than an argument of envy.

Our poor live better than the rest of the worlds middle class. In fact, if your HOUSEHOLD, combined, is $50,000 or more, you are in the wealthiest 2% of the world.

Thats right. 2 roommates, working as managers at fast food joints, have a household income in the top 2% of the world.

The African-American population of the USA, if taken seperately, would be the 4th richest nation on Earth.

Income disparity in the USA is NOTHING but a statement of envy and jealousy from libiots who are jealous of what others have and want someone to take it from them so they will feel better about themselves. Plain and simple.


----------



## boedicca

Toro said:


> I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity.  I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world.  But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe.  In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.
> 
> BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state.  Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.




What's the income disparity of Zimbabwe?

Your graph is really quite meaningless.   The people below the median level of income in the U.S. have standards of living that not even kings had in the past.   They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of capital investment which made them widely available, relatively cheap, and cost effective to distribute.

Instead of comparing oneself to everyone who is better off, a better use of one's time is to focus on improving one's own lot in life - something to which people in the U.S. have generally had far more opportunity than most everyone who has ever lived (if you really need to make a comparison).


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> Instead of comparing oneself to everyone who is better off, a better use of one's time is to focus on improving one's own lot in life - something to which people in the U.S. have generally had far more opportunity than most everyone who has ever lived (if you really need to make a comparison).



You have a graph to compare the opportunity of people in the USA with "most everyone who has ever lived?"

Instead of comparing Toro's graph to a mythical one, a better use of one's time would be to sample Rex-Goliath Chardonnay, 2008, Woodbridge, CA. The wine is named after the "World's Largest ......um.....'Rooster'.......weighing in at 47 lbs.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.
> 
> I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.
> 
> You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.
> 
> China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.
> 
> Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.
> 
> A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.
> 
> *In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.
> 
> I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.
> 
> All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?
> 
> From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.
> 
> You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.
> 
> In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.
> 
> There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.
> 
> About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?
> 
> Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?
> 
> LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.
> 
> Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without adequate food.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, millions are without medicine.
> 
> Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million
> 
> 
> 
> It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.
> 
> And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I called you an idiot.  You are.  Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.
> 
> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).  I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.
> 
> A lesson you and others should learn.  Then you wouldn't be idiots.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:
> 
> Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And as I quoted above.
> 
> Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*.
> 
> Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.
> 
> Check your own references, they prove you wrong.
> 
> And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?
Click to expand...

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.


----------



## QUENTIN

bucs90 said:


> Wow. "Protecting the corporations from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the corporations", aka, unions and socialist loons like Obama and Marx.
> 
> There is one thing you libtards never seem to realize: The corporations ARE THE PEOPLE.
> 
> You libiots seem to equate corporations with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a corporation, a business, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.
> 
> Without people, a corporation doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" corporations like Wal-Mart. And Hardees/Carl's Jr. And BP.
> 
> PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people own stock in them and make money from them. And other businesses share and trade with them. And thats how the economy works, with corporations earning, spending, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.
> 
> But no, you lefties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite Obama stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Big Sugar Daddy government can fairly distribute the Obama stash to you.
> 
> So, when Obama says a corporation has "Made enough money", he's telling it's thousands of workers, and thousands of shareholders, and hundreds of businesses that company buys supplies and services from: No more. You have enough. The Obama stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my minions.
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like commun........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social fairness. There, thats better, right?



Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.

There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.

You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.

So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.

Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?

/\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.


----------



## saveliberty

A two party system bent on getting your vote and taking your money.  Government is the people, get a clue moron.


----------



## boedicca

Samson said:


> You have a graph to compare the opportunity of people in the USA with "most everyone who has ever lived?"
> 
> Instead of comparing Toro's graph to a mythical one, a better use of one's time would be to sample Rex-Goliath Chardonnay, 2008, Woodbridge, CA. The wine is named after the "World's Largest ......um.....'Rooster'.......weighing in at 47 lbs.




No graph - just logic.

And one is drinking Rosé these days.


----------



## mudwhistle

saveliberty said:


> A two party system bent on getting your vote and taking your money.  Government is the people, get a clue moron.



Actually government answers to the people.....but these days they don't.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.
> 
> I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.
> 
> You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.
> 
> China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.
> 
> Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.
> 
> A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.
> 
> *In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.
> 
> I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.
> 
> All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I called you an idiot.  You are.  Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.
> 
> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).  I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.
> 
> A lesson you and others should learn.  Then you wouldn't be idiots.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:
> 
> Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And as I quoted above.
> 
> Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*.
> 
> Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.
> 
> Check your own references, they prove you wrong.
> 
> And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their population*s, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "*industrialized nations*".





> The following are considered emerging and develop*ing* economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> * *  Mexico *
> ...



Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.

Also interesting to note you've yet to reply now to the substantive question of what point you were trying to make by, however erroneously, arguing there were a couple industrialized nations with even greater income inequality than the U.S.

"Hey Afghans, great news! We don't have to worry about fixing our health care anymore, we no longer have the highest infant mortality rate in the world, just the third highest! No problems here!"


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.
> 
> I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.
> 
> All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:
> 
> Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And as I quoted above.
> 
> Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*.
> 
> Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.
> 
> Check your own references, they prove you wrong.
> 
> And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.
> 
> Once more for those keeping score at home:
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their population*s, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "*industrialized nations*".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following are considered emerging and develop*ing* economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> * *  Mexico *
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.
Click to expand...


Liar.  (The link I posted a while back.  A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.
> 
> Once more for those keeping score at home:
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following are considered emerging and develop*ing* economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> * *  Mexico *
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  (The link I posted a while back.  A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)
Click to expand...


Ooh, and you're back at it, keeping it difficult to discern whether you're lying or stupid with every post.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries."





> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".



Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.



Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, *they are not industrialized nations*. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.


----------



## saveliberty

Singapore appears on the list of industrialized AND developed nations.  The US is post-industrialized.  They should be off the list to begin with.


----------



## Toro

boedicca said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity.  I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world.  But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe.  In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.
> 
> BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state.  Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the income disparity of Zimbabwe?
> 
> Your graph is really quite meaningless.   The people below the median level of income in the U.S. have standards of living that not even kings had in the past.   They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of capital investment which made them widely available, relatively cheap, and cost effective to distribute.
Click to expand...


Its meaningless to those who do not understand context.

One could make the same argument about social democracy and why high taxes produce a better society.  

The people below the median level of income in *Sweden* have standards of living that not even kings had in the past.   They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of _*human*_ capital investment which gave people a high level of education, great social mobility, and social insurance.​


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.
> 
> Once more for those keeping score at home:
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  (The link I posted a while back.  A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooh, and you're back at it, keeping it difficult to discern whether you're lying or stupid with every post.
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, *they are not industrialized nations*. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.
Click to expand...


Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.


----------



## Toro

Si modo said:


> Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.
> 
> Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.



Just a question here.  When I think of this argument, I do not include Mexico nor China in the group of "industrialized" countries.  The term "industrialized" used to mean "rich" when referring to economic advancement.  Perhaps I am outmoded in my thinking, and we should we say "post-industrial" countries.  Those countries, whether they are called "industrialized," "post-industrial" or "rich" are generally considered to be the countries of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.  You can't really put China and Mexico into that group because they are still quite poor by our standards.

My question is thus, compared to this group of countries, where does the US rank in income disparity?


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.
> 
> Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.



Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.

You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather  "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate _that_ point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.

Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.

YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.

It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face. 

So, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.


----------



## QUENTIN

Toro said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.
> 
> Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question here.  When I think of this argument, I do not include Mexico nor China in the group of "industrialized" countries.  The term "industrialized" used to mean "rich" when referring to economic advancement.  Perhaps I am outmoded in my thinking, and we should we say "post-industrial" countries.  Those countries, whether they are called "industrialized," "post-industrial" or "rich" are generally considered to be the countries of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.  You can't really put China and Mexico into that group because they are still quite poor by our standards.
> 
> My question is thus, compared to this group of countries, where does the US rank in income disparity?
Click to expand...


Among the list of truly developed countries (there are 37 according to the CIA, 34 according to the IMF, China and Mexico on neither) which includes, as you said, Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the "Asian Tigers"

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US has a Gini index of 45 and the only industrialized nation higher is Hong Kong at 53. Singapore, according to the CIA but not IMF, has a Gini as of 2008 of 48, when the CIA puts the US at 46.6. The IMF's last available data on Singapore is a decade old at 42.5

So to answer your question, we are either #2 or #3 for highest income inequality of industrialized or developed nations.

If you're thinking of only the countries you named, those that have been rich or industrialized or developed for a long time now (so excluding the four "Asian Tigers" which are considered industrialized but may not fit into your older "rich" paradigm), we are #1.

Rather than continue to bicker with people who are unfamiliar with the terms they're using about this #1, #2, or #3 status, what I was hoping to discuss was that while America has an inarguably quite high gap between the rich and poor, it's a terrible idea to argue for the continued and further lining of the pockets of the wealthiest while the lower and middle class suffer through an economic crisis that elite are largely responsible for. The very rich, at this point, have made enough money, we should be focused on bringing up the employment, income, and economic advancement among the rest of the country who've been hit quite hard lately and can use (and deserve) the help much more.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.
> 
> Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.
> 
> You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather  "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate _that_ point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.
> 
> Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.
> 
> YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.
> 
> It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.
> 
> So, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.
Click to expand...

Damn, you ARE stupid.  SINGAPORE, not Hong Kong.

And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate.  Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either.

When I say idiot and stupid and moron, I mean it.  Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them.

See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often.  Youre excessive verbosity does not change the fact that your initial claim and your lame attempt at a correction are still wrong, either. 

At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference.

Idiot. 

Moron.

And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors.

Trust me on this, I am dug in.  You were and are wrong.  Deal with it.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  You're a spineless idiot at this point.  YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  That is flat wrong.  Suck it up and deal with it.
> 
> Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity  of industrialized countries.  That is also flat wrong.
> 
> Now, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.
> 
> You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather  "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate _that_ point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.
> 
> Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.
> 
> YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.
> 
> It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.
> 
> So, here's an idea:  When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported.  Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
> 
> Quit crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, you ARE stupid.  SINGAPORE, not Hong Kong.
> 
> And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate.  Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either.
> 
> When I say idiot and stupid and moron, I mean it.  Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them.
> 
> See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often.  Youre excessive verbosity does not change the fact that your initial claim and your lame attempt at a correction are still wrong, either.
> 
> At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors.
> 
> Trust me on this, I am dug in.  You were and are wrong.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha, again the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Over and over and over you claimed China and Mexico were industrialized nations while we both provided the proof they're not. You've yet to address this and instead went into a tailspin of deflection when it was finally proven via your own sources that you were wrong.

And you're even making new ones, Hong Kong's Gini index is 53.3 and it's an industrialized nation. Singapore's listing on the link you provided is 42.5, although as I said the CIA (but not IMF) now list it higher. According to your source, and one of the three major judges of income disparity, Singapore's is lower, according to one of the others, it's higher, so Singapore is questionable while Hong Kong, as I accurately stated and backed up, is definitively known as higher.

You've now made _more_ factually incorrect assertions _more _times_ and_ refused to acknowledge them.

So according to your own standards, having repeatedly claimed that China and Mexico were industrialized, developed nations, you are an idiot and stupid and a moron, in fact, more of one even than you describe since you not only made an inaccurate and easily verifiable claim that you didn't support, you actually cited as support proof that you were dead fucking wrong. It doesn't get much stupider than that.

"And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate.  Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either... Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them...See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often...At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference...And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors."

Pot. Kettle. Black.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.
> 
> I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.
> 
> You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.
> 
> China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.
> 
> Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.
> 
> A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.
> 
> *In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.
> 
> I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.
> 
> All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I called you an idiot.  You are.  Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.
> 
> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).  I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.
> 
> A lesson you and others should learn.  Then you wouldn't be idiots.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:
> 
> Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And as I quoted above.
> 
> Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*.
> 
> Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.
> 
> Check your own references, they prove you wrong.
> 
> And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...

So he provides links and you repeat your assertions and insult his intelligence?


----------



## bucs90

QUENTIN said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.
> 
> There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.
> 
> You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.
> 
> Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.
> 
> PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.
> 
> But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.
> 
> So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?
> 
> /\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.
Click to expand...


Clever play on words there, but not consistent with what I said.

A big difference is as follows:

Gov't: Has men with guns, can write laws, can use violence to force us to pay them or obey them. Or both.

Coporation: Commerce is completely voluntary. Citizens have choice, and can live without any interaction with any company if they choose.

See, the government takes from the most successful, and gives to the least successful. Corporations do the opposite, thus, inspiring harder work and more productive people. Government has no competition, thus, can embrace inadequacy and inefficiency, thus breeding lazy, careless employees. Corporations survive only through competence and competitiveness. 

Corporations employ hard workers, and pay dividends to those who work hard, save, and buy stock.

Government employs some hard workers, and some lazy leeches who want to be guaranteed a job. Gov't pays dividends, aka welfare, to the lazy.

Corporations can only ask for money, and hope you frequent their business.
Governments mandate taking our money, and do so by force.

And finally, frequenting a corporation or business is completely voluntary. The government can force us to pay taxes and obey laws, but they cannot force us to purchase any item from any private company........er, wait, until now.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be develop*ing* countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.
> 
> I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.
> 
> All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:
> 
> Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And as I quoted above.
> 
> Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject *when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong*.
> 
> Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.
> 
> Check your own references, they prove you wrong.
> 
> And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (_vide supra_).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he provides links and you repeat your assertions and insult his intelligence?
Click to expand...

Yup.  HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.

In my book, that is what idiots do.  It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim,  from the start.  It's just that simple.

I like accuracy.  Others obviously don't.


----------



## Immanuel

QUENTIN said:


> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.
> 
> Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.
> 
> Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.



Forgive me for bringing up a three day old post that scanning through all the other pages shows it has been discussed ad nauseum but I just want to say this and didn't see where anyone else had said it.

I can agree that these people make far more than any human being has a right to make, it is not the place of President Obama, Congress or anyone else to dictate how much is too much.

Serf thinking or not, it is not my place to tell anyone that does not work for me that they make too much money.

Immie


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> Yup.  HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.
> 
> In my book, that is what idiots do.  It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim,  from the start.  It's just that simple.
> 
> I like accuracy.  Others obviously don't.





Si modo said:


> If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)





Si modo said:


> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).





Si modo said:


> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.



You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."

I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.


----------



## masquerade

I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.


----------



## QUENTIN

bucs90 said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.
> 
> There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.
> 
> You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.
> 
> Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.
> 
> PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.
> 
> But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.
> 
> So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?
> 
> /\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever play on words there, but not consistent with what I said.
> 
> A big difference is as follows:
> 
> Gov't: Has men with guns, can write laws, can use violence to force us to pay them or obey them. Or both.
> 
> Coporation: Commerce is completely voluntary. Citizens have choice, and can live without any interaction with any company if they choose.
> 
> See, the government takes from the most successful, and gives to the least successful. Corporations do the opposite, thus, inspiring harder work and more productive people. Government has no competition, thus, can embrace inadequacy and inefficiency, thus breeding lazy, careless employees. Corporations survive only through competence and competitiveness.
> 
> Corporations employ hard workers, and pay dividends to those who work hard, save, and buy stock.
> 
> Government employs some hard workers, and some lazy leeches who want to be guaranteed a job. Gov't pays dividends, aka welfare, to the lazy.
> 
> Corporations can only ask for money, and hope you frequent their business.
> Governments mandate taking our money, and do so by force.
> 
> And finally, frequenting a corporation or business is completely voluntary. The government can force us to pay taxes and obey laws, but they cannot force us to purchase any item from any private company........er, wait, until now.
Click to expand...


I think the extent to which public consumption of corporate goods is truly voluntary is often exaggerated. For instance I lived for two years in an area that had only one internet service provider serving that community. If you wanted internet, you had to go through them. There's the argument that you could choose not to have internet if you don't want to do business with them and that's true, but when say your work requires you to have the internet and it's the primary means of business and personal communication, that's no longer really an accurate or reasonable reflection of the situation.

Let's go a step further and use an example you can't at all make the choice not to have: health care. Before all this government intervention, if you take someone with serious pre-existing conditions from a chronic childhood illness say, they are going to have a nearly impossible time finding coverage for their health. Insurance companies will raise their prices out the ass because that person actually has no other option and they know this. He can't choose not to do business with an unscrupulous corporation, because to do so puts him in mortal danger. 

Even with things that don't immediately put you at risk of dying, the degree to which one can choose to opt out is unrealistically overstated. Oil companies for instance have recognized that much of the world runs on oil and in a modern, commuter society like America most people rely on transportation that consumes oil. So they fix their prices at the highest rate they think they can get away with to a customer base that without their product is rendered practically immobile. Public transportation isn't an option outside of cities for a lot of people. So while someone can theoretically opt out of dealing with gas suppliers if they choose to because they don't like their unethical behavior, they are left pretty much with walking, biking, or taming a horse which is obviously impractical.

The idea that all business interaction with corporations on the part of people is truly voluntary or that there are such a plethora of options that they can choose a corporation they like better that won't engage in unethical behavior is practically and in reality often a kind of fiction. 

The "option" to not do business with any corrupt corporation if you so "choose" leaves you with alternatives that aren't really viable options at all. "If you don't want to deal with unscrupulous landlords, you can live out on the street" for instance isn't really a valid reflection of choice. And for that matter, if you truly want to remove yourself from the control of the U.S. government, you can either live far off the grid or even easier leave the country. Those should also not really be considered an equal and reasonable solution to bad government policy though, anymore than trying to live a life that doesn't rely to some extent on corporations is a reasonable solution to sleazy corporate practice. Both do have "choice" to some extent, but it's more an illusion of choice. "Gimme your money or I'll throw you in jail" is different but in the same vein of "I'm the only guy with water in this desert. Gimme your money or you can choose to dehydrate."

I think it's refreshing that you admit that corporations, by and large, take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most, but I disagree that that necessarily inspires harder work and productivity. It's often just demoralizing when you have so little to see it all go to those who already have so much because they're more powerful and can, say, gouge your rent (you need to live somewhere, homelessness is not a practical or reasonable choice), credit (if you can't afford those groceries but need to eat), etc. And I think that plays itself out among the lower class actually. You call poor people on welfare "lazy," but most of them work pretty stressful low reward jobs, and it's not going to make you more productive to realize that no matter how hard you work at the handful of jobs you can get, you're never going to crawl out of debt or even be able to provide for yourself. It's soul-crushing, not motivating, and the idea that anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed if they work hard enough is an even bigger fiction in our society.

On the government mandating we buy private insurance from their corporate donors, I'm with you that that's absolutely ridiculous and awful. It's also funny that it gets called socialism (single-payer would have been socializing health care), as government intervention by force to assure the benefit of a private corporation is an economic aspect of fascism. 

I would consider myself anti-government, anti-corporate, I think enormous bureaucracies fueled primarily by maintaining or expanding their own existence and power are almost inherently detrimental to the people they come into contact with. I think where anti-government, pro-corporate people go wrong is often in not recognizing the degree to which corporations own the government and pay it to work for them, rather than the other way around. So much government malfeasance is simply government acting in the best interest of business against the best interest of its citizens.

Anyway, all that's to say I think it's not an entirely accurate or practical oversimplification to argue the difference between government and corporations is that interaction with or paying a corporation is entirely voluntary. In theory it is, but in practice we often aren't given sufficient options to make it true.

However, your point about the government having guns, having the ability to write laws, using direct force, those are all quite valid and considerable distinctions between government and corporations that demonstrate they are not interchangeable.  They just aren't any of the points you were using in the post I parodied to argue a pro-corporate stance, since that hinged upon the fact that corporations are just made up of people, which is also true of government. My issue wasn't with your stance, but with the poor nature of your argument in defense of it. Now you're making a better case for it.



Immanuel said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.
> 
> Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.
> 
> Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me for bringing up a three day old post that scanning through all the other pages shows it has been discussed ad nauseum but I just want to say this and didn't see where anyone else had said it.
> 
> I can agree that these people make far more than any human being has a right to make, it is not the place of President Obama, Congress or anyone else to dictate how much is too much.
> 
> Serf thinking or not, it is not my place to tell anyone that does not work for me that they make too much money.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


No worries, I agree with that too.

I believe, like Adam Smith,



			
				Adam Smith said:
			
		

> "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."



that progressive taxation is necessary for capitalism to function in a society. So my belief that certain people have made enough money justifies progressive taxation, that if you've made $100 million bonus this year, you should have to give a greater percentage of it to the country whose economy, protections, and services you enjoy than the guy who made $10,000 all year.

It doesn't justify and I don't believe in putting a cap on the amount someone can make, i.e. taking all of someone's wealth over a certain point because that's just too much money, because even though I feel at a certain point enough is enough, I don't believe anyone has the right to enforce that.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.
> 
> In my book, that is what idiots do.  It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim,  from the start.  It's just that simple.
> 
> I like accuracy.  Others obviously don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot.  (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (_vide supra_).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."
> 
> I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.
Click to expand...

Ah.  I'm an idiot for showing that your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity among industrialized nations, when it does not.  I'm an idiot for showing that your subsequent  claim (when called on your first wrong) that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized nations when it does not.


Keep trying and keep lying about my links which you don't read because obviously not only are you a liar, but you are lazy.

Moron.  Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.
> 
> In my book, that is what idiots do.  It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim,  from the start.  It's just that simple.
> 
> I like accuracy.  Others obviously don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).
> 
> At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."
> 
> I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  I'm an idiot for showing that your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity among industrialized nations, when it does not.  I'm an idiot for showing that your subsequent  claim (when called on your first wrong) that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized nations when it does not.
> 
> 
> Keep trying and keep lying about my links which you don't read because obviously not only are you a liar, but you are lazy.
> 
> Moron.  Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?
Click to expand...


No, by your own estimation you're an idiot for "posting an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then posting an inaccurate claim again." And then again.

You've repeatedly stated that Mexico and China are industrialized countries, gone so far as to say only an idiot would think otherwise, and your own cited link proved they are not industrialized nations.

I immediately admitted we were not #1, but #2 in income inequality among industrialized nations according to the source you actually posted first (and I've cited specifically many, many times proving I've read it which you haven't done once):

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (US =45 Gini index, Hong Kong =52.3, Singapore = 42.5)

We are not #1, that is true. According to your source and the IMF, we are #2 as I've said, so you didn't disprove anything there, instead you kept inaccurately claiming Mexico and China were industrialized nations. I'm the one who noted that while the IMF ranks us as having greater income inequality than Singapore and the source you provided says the same, the CIA differs and ranks them 1.3 points above us on the Gini index, so it's in dispute whether we're #2 or #3 as I said to Toro, but that disputed variation is ultimately insignificant to the point I've made several times now about the substance of the argument rather than the minutae of disputed rankings. 

You did not admit you were dead wrong about China and Mexico, you continued to make the claim again and again, and still seem to stand by it even though you've backed off restating it since I categorically proved it was wrong.

According to your standards, that makes you a raging fucking idiot. They're your standards, ones you keep repeating in the very thread where you so blatantly violate them, that's what makes it so funny. 

Anyway, you've demonstrated no amount of evidence is going to move you from your "dug in" and quite wrong position and out of silly pride or insecurity you're unwilling to admit your mistake and instead deflect in the extreme, calling me an idiot for behavior less egregious and quickly corrected. So I'm done with you, enjoy your hypocrisy and now your clear dishonesty.


----------



## boedicca

masquerade said:


> I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.



You mean these folks?

_
And if you hadn&#8217;t heard it before now, you may be wondering who he was talking about.

Perhaps he was speaking to Hollywood &#8212; producer/directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, who were paid $170 million and $150 million, respectively, according to Forbes magazine&#8217;s 2009 list. Less generous, but still better than I and probably you, were Jerry Bruckheimer at $100 million and Atlanta&#8217;s Tyler Perry at $75 million. Or actors such as Harrison Ford ($65 million) or Adam Sandler ($55 million).

Then again, he might have been talking to America&#8217;s television stars. Dr. Phil (McGraw) pulled down $80 million, Forbes reports. Simon Cowell of &#8220;American Idol&#8221; was close behind at $75 million. And there&#8217;s Oprah, our highest-paid celebrity, at $275 million.

But Oprah is one of the president&#8217;s biggest backers, so let&#8217;s forget the big and little screens and turn to musicians. For all the challenges to that industry, Madonna managed to bring home $110 million. There&#8217;s Beyonce Knowles at $87 million; Bruce Springsteen, $70 million; Kenny Chesney and Dave Matthews Band, $65 million each; and a cool $60 million for the band Rascal Flatts.

I could mention athletes, but Tiger Woods was in a class of his own at $110 million (a figure he won&#8217;t match this year)...._

Exactly who &#8216;makes enough money&#8217; in Obama&#8217;s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield


----------



## Misty

I'd rather he said this; "I do think at a certain point the government has taken enough money from it's citizens and wasted it.".


----------



## boedicca

I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.





Like how many would that be, exactly?

100 pts!! Congrats


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> Moron.  Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?






QUENTIN said:


> From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> China
> Mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMF Developed Countries:
> 
> Australia  Germany  Malta  South Korea
>  Austria  Greece  Netherlands  Spain
>  Belgium  Hong Kong  New Zealand  Sweden
>  Canada  Iceland  Norway  Switzerland
>  Cyprus  Ireland  Portugal  Taiwan
>  Czech Republic  Israel  San Marino[19]  United Kingdom
>  Denmark  Italy  Singapore  United States
>  Finland  Japan  Slovakia
>  France  Luxembourg  Slovenia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




QUENTIN said:


> Once more for those keeping score at home:
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their population*s, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "*industrialized nations*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following are considered emerging and develop*ing* economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> * *  Mexico *
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




QUENTIN said:


> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, *they are not industrialized nations*. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.
Click to expand...


Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong. 

That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.

In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.

Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.  Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, *they are not industrialized nations*. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.
> 
> That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.
> 
> In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.
> 
> Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.
Click to expand...


Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin:  You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).  Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).

Idiot.


----------



## QUENTIN

Misty said:


> I'd rather he said this; "I do think at a certain point the government has taken enough money from it's citizens and wasted it.".



It's the second part I have the real problem with. The right rages on about social safety nets that are among the primary reasons people form into societies in the first place, I think those are necessary and relatively meager. I have a problem with the exorbitant defense budget, nearly half of the defense spending of the entire world and largely going to privatized and embedded defense contractors making shit we don't need in the 21st century, and the right thinks those are necessary.

What we can almost all agree on is that for instance the massive bailout of private industry with public money is a horrible corporatist clusterfuck and that government spending in general is grossly inefficient. There are always going to be people who are just greedy fucks and resent paying taxes period despite the many benefits they receive from their government, but I imagine most people wouldn't have such a problem with their taxes if they were allocated in a sane and effective way. 

As for Obama's Hollywood supporters, while they're not nearly as rich as the banking CEOs he's railing against, of course he doesn't mean it applies to them. He's profoundly disingenuous on the subject. His condemnation of "fat cats" is just rhetorical posturing. While trying to appeal to populist sensibilities during a depression Wall Street caused with what he says, his actual actions make him a reliable errand boy for the corporate elite. When he's done pretend-vilifying them in a speech, he turns around and gives them billions in tax dollars for their extravagant bonuses.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.  Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, *they are not industrialized nations*. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.
> 
> That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.
> 
> In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.
> 
> Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin:  You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).  Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate. 

*Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy. *

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.


----------



## boedicca

Samson said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like how many would that be, exactly?
> 
> 100 pts!! Congrats
Click to expand...



Far less than we have now.



Thanks!


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like how many would that be, exactly?
> 
> 100 pts!! Congrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Far less than we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


I'm guessing thats probably, exactly, less than half a dozen.


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.
> 
> That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.
> 
> In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.
> 
> Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin:  You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).  Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're deflecting.
> 
> It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.
> 
> Now...
> 
> How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what *you* did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.
> 
> You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.
> 
> How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.  I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE.  Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.  (Third time posting the link...amazing.)


----------



## boedicca

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of Are are.

Quentin just doesn't grok.


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin:  You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).  Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're deflecting.
> 
> It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.
> 
> Now...
> 
> How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what *you* did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.
> 
> You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.
> 
> How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, indeed.  I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE.  Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.
Click to expand...


We be conjugatin' da verbage when we be postin' wid da Si.


----------



## JBeukema

you keep saying they're industrialized, but you don't link to the page about industrialized nations- rather you link to a wiki page that states they're being industrialized currently and mock the poster who cites the CIA?


----------



## boedicca

It's already been posted in thread.

List of NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries):

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> It's already been posted in thread.
> 
> List of NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries):
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Are you actually attempting to bring him up to speed?

Ah, Boester, the Eternal Optimist.........


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> you keep saying they're industrialized, but you don't link to the page about industrialized nations- rather you link to a wiki page that states they're being industrialized currently and mock the poster who cites the CIA?


The term 'references therein' is lost on you.


----------



## boedicca

Mon Cher Sammy,

I would hope anyone can be receptive to New G2, bub.

*educationalizingmentingly*

boe


----------



## QUENTIN

boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government? 

There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%. 

If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.

Is 3%  too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin:  You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).  Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries.  Not true (_vide supra_).
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're deflecting.
> 
> It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.
> 
> Now...
> 
> How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what *you* did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.
> 
> You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.
> 
> How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, indeed.  I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE.  Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.  (Third time posting the link...amazing.)
Click to expand...




> *Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations*, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". *Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries*, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and *"industrialized nations"*.





> Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, *but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"*





> *The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009*:
> 
> *China
> Mexico*





> IMF Developed Countries:
> 
> Australia &#8226; Germany &#8226; Malta &#8226; South Korea
> &#8226; Austria &#8226; Greece &#8226; Netherlands &#8226; Spain
> &#8226; Belgium &#8226; Hong Kong &#8226; New Zealand &#8226; Sweden
> &#8226; Canada &#8226; Iceland &#8226; Norway &#8226; Switzerland
> &#8226; Cyprus &#8226; Ireland &#8226; Portugal &#8226; Taiwan
> &#8226; Czech Republic &#8226; Israel &#8226; San Marino[19] &#8226; United Kingdom
> &#8226; Denmark &#8226; Italy &#8226; Singapore &#8226; United States
> &#8226; Finland &#8226; Japan &#8226; Slovakia
> &#8226; France &#8226; Luxembourg &#8226; Slovenia (*No China or Mexico!)*



[/QUOTE]



QUENTIN said:


> Once more for those keeping score at home:
> 
> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their population*s, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "*industrialized nations*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following are considered emerging and develop*ing* economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> * *  Mexico *
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




QUENTIN said:


> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (third time posting these explanations...amazing).
> 
> In addition to the IMF, here's the CIA's current, present tense reiteration: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *developing countries*
> a term used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the bottom group in its hierarchy of advanced economies, countries in transition, and developing countries; IMF statistics include the following 126 developing countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, *China*, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, *Mexico*, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe; note - this category would presumably also cover the following 46 other countries that are traditionally included in the more comprehensive group of "less developed countries": American Samoa, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Cook Islands, Cuba, Eritrea, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gaza Strip, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, North Korea, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Tokelau, Tonga, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that despite the information contained within your link, you still don't know what a "Newly industrialized country" is. They're countries that ARE not industrialized, but are in the PROCESS of becoming industrialized. To again analogize economic development to human development, they're adolescents who have outpaced their child counterparts but are not yet adults. You keep insisting a 13-year-old is an adult because it's no longer a baby and sure is growing up fast.
> 
> NICs are not industrialized countries or developed countries, they are the develop*ing* countries most rapidly going through the *process of industrialization*.
> 
> Again, the UN, IMF, and CIA, the three major international bodies of economic classification are in agreement that China and Mexico are not industrialized.
> 
> How you can still claim otherwise, despite the evidence provided in your own links and now thrice highlighted here for you is rather amazing.
> 
> It's like talking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're deflecting.
> 
> It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.
> 
> Now...
> 
> How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what *you* did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.
> 
> You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.
> 
> How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.  I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE.  Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.  (Third time posting the link...amazing.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






QUENTIN said:


> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (third time posting these explanations...amazing).
> 
> It's clear that despite the information contained within your link, you still don't know what a "Newly industrialized country" is. They're countries that ARE not industrialized, but are in the PROCESS of becoming industrialized. To again analogize economic development to human development, they're adolescents who have outpaced their child counterparts but are not yet adults.
> 
> NICs are not industrialized countries or developed countries, they are the developing countries most rapidly going through the process of industrialization.
> 
> Again, the UN, IMF, and CIA, the three major international bodies of economic classification are in agreement that China and Mexico are not industrialized.
> 
> How you can still claim otherwise, despite the evidence provided in your own links and now thrice highlighted here for you is rather amazing.
> 
> It's like talking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...

A newly industrialized country IS industrialized.  Sorry, time doesn't stop for dishonest posters.


----------



## boedicca

QUENTIN said:


> boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?
> 
> There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.
> 
> Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.
> 
> If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.
> 
> Is 3%  too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?




I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.


----------



## boedicca

QUENTIN said:


> It's like talking to a brick wall.




^^^ Speaking of Brick Walls.


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?
> 
> There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.
> 
> Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.
> 
> If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.
> 
> Is 3%  too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.
Click to expand...


Translation: "19 are too many."


----------



## boedicca

Way too many!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!


----------



## QUENTIN

boedicca said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?
> 
> There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.
> 
> Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.
> 
> If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.
> 
> Is 3%  too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.
Click to expand...


Certainly there are a great deal of Democrats who currently follow _some_ progressive philosophy, but also follow lots of non-progressive philosophies and vote accordingly.

Progressive is a specific outlook prescribing specific policies, if a person only votes for progressive causes half the time, and votes in opposition to them the other half of the time, does that make them progressives to you?

I'm for decreasing the size and role of government in many substantial ways, gun rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy, but that hardly makes me a conservative or libertarian because there are also a lot of positions I advocate in opposition to conservative and libertarian philosophy and policy. 

Is someone a conservative to you if they only support a conservative agenda say 60% of the time? Or, like Pelosi, a progressive if they only support a progressive agenda 14% of the time?

I think politicians who vote down the party line are not ideologically anything - progressive, liberal, conservative, or libertarian - they're just mindlessly loyal members of a team.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon?  _*THAT*_ Obama?

Laughable.


----------



## bucs90

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon?  _*THAT*_ Obama?
> 
> Laughable.



Yep, THAT same Obama.

The same Obama that bashes any company who dares make "windfall profits" as evil, while his windfall profits from being president is OK. 

Well, to be honest, his windfall profits come from being black. If he wasn't black he wouldn't be president and thats pure fact. He should donate all his windfall profits to NAACP charities.


----------



## Samson

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon?  _*THAT*_ Obama?
> 
> Laughable.



What's laughable is he did all that BEFORE beating McCain.





Ok its not really funny.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> A newly industrialized country IS industrialized.  Sorry, time doesn't stop for dishonest posters.










> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), *First World nations and "industrialized nations".*



The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:



> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.



What part of that do you not understand?

Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?

You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?
> 
> You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?
Click to expand...

So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.  

What a fucking moron you are.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.

Seems like they kinda need companies to generate wealth... or are they just that dumb?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"



What a political genius. He's actually trying to turn Republicans off from Wall Street regulation, that way they will look like the morons they are when they don't vote for it.




> None of your damn business you socialist pig.



Actually Wall Stree falls under the commerce clause. But I know you're not a bit supporter of the Constitution.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.



You do understand you can't tax a profit that isn't there, right?


----------



## boedicca

SpidermanTuba said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand you can't tax a profit that isn't there, right?
Click to expand...



That's why the government is so interested in the VAT.  It's a cost plus tax.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a political genius. He's actually trying to turn Republicans off from Wall Street regulation, that way they will look like the morons they are when they don't vote for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Wall Stree falls under the commerce clause. But I know you're not a bit supporter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Wall Street falls under the commerce clause...  HUH????  Are you mental?


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?
> 
> You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
Click to expand...


No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community. 

You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.

Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.

I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?
> 
> You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.
> 
> You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.
> 
> Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.
Click to expand...

I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times.  Moron.  Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently  industrialized countries.


----------



## QUENTIN

QUENTIN said:


> I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?



/\


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a political genius. He's actually trying to turn Republicans off from Wall Street regulation, that way they will look like the morons they are when they don't vote for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Wall Stree falls under the commerce clause. But I know you're not a bit supporter of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street falls under the commerce clause...  HUH????  Are you mental?
Click to expand...




Then I guess I'm just as mental as the SEC and the Congress that set it up. 


If you don't see how people buying and selling equities for other folks across state lines isn't covered by the commerce clause, I'd recommend you go back to high school to learn what words mean.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.
> 
> You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.
> 
> Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times.  Moron.  Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently  industrialized countries.
Click to expand...


I have, it's short, to the point, and I've quoted from it repeatedly. It demonstrates that they're not industrialized countries.



> *NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). *Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.



Says here NICs are not yet industrialized. "Industrialized" as noted above multiple times from this link: Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is synonymous with "developed," "First World," and "most economically developed countries." ("Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".) It says plainly NICs have not yet reached First World status.



> The term began to be used circa 1970 when the Four Asian Tigers[1] of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan rose to global prominence as NICs in the 1970s and 80s, with exceptionally fast industrial growth since the 1960s; *all four regions have since graduated into advanced economies and* high-income economies. *There is a clear distinction between these countries and the nations now considered to be NICs*. In particular, the combination of an open political process, high GNI per capita and a thriving, export-oriented economic policy has shown that *these countries have now not only reached but surpassed the ranks of many developed countries.*



All four former NICs have SINCE GRADUATED into advanced economies (look up advanced economies, see where it redirects you: to "developed countries" where China and Mexico are not listed).

There is a CLEAR DISTINCTION between these now industrialized countries and those currently considered NICs, since these former NICs have now become developed countries. Again, making clear the difference between industrialized nations and NICs.



> NICs usually benefit from comparatively low labor costs, which translates into lower input prices for suppliers. As a result, *it is often easier for producers in NICs to outperform and outproduce factories in developed countries*, where the cost of living is higher, and labor unions and other organizations have more political sway.



It's easier for NICs to outperform developed countries, again contrasting NICs with industrialized countries and pointing out their significant differences because they're not the same.

Take your own advice and read the article, it makes absolutely, undeniably, and abundantly clear in plain English that NICs are not industrialized countries, but rather countries on their way to industrialization.

*I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?*

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?


----------



## Si modo

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.
> 
> You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.
> 
> Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times.  Moron.  Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently  industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have, it's short, to the point, and I've quoted from it repeatedly. It demonstrates that they're not industrialized countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Says here NICs are not yet industrialized. "Industrialized" as noted above multiple times from this link: Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is synonymous with "developed," "First World," and "most economically developed countries." ("Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".) It says plainly NICs have not yet reached First World status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term began to be used circa 1970 when the Four Asian Tigers[1] of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan rose to global prominence as NICs in the 1970s and 80s, with exceptionally fast industrial growth since the 1960s; *all four regions have since graduated into advanced economies and* high-income economies. *There is a clear distinction between these countries and the nations now considered to be NICs*. In particular, the combination of an open political process, high GNI per capita and a thriving, export-oriented economic policy has shown that *these countries have now not only reached but surpassed the ranks of many developed countries.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All four former NICs have SINCE GRADUATED into advanced economies (look up advanced economies, see where it redirects you: to "developed countries" where China and Mexico are not listed).
> 
> There is a CLEAR DISTINCTION between these now industrialized countries and those currently considered NICs, since these former NICs have now become developed countries. Again, making clear the difference between industrialized nations and NICs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs usually benefit from comparatively low labor costs, which translates into lower input prices for suppliers. As a result, *it is often easier for producers in NICs to outperform and outproduce factories in developed countries*, where the cost of living is higher, and labor unions and other organizations have more political sway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easier for NICs to outperform developed countries, again contrasting NICs with industrialized countries and pointing out their significant differences because they're not the same.
> 
> Take your own advice and read the article, it makes absolutely, undeniably, and abundantly clear in plain English that NICs are not industrialized countries, but rather countries on their way to industrialization.
> 
> *I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?*
> 
> So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?
Click to expand...

And, they ARE currently industrialized.

If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.

They ARE industrialized.


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> And, they ARE currently industrialized.
> 
> If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.
> 
> They ARE industrialized.



*I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?*

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?


----------



## masquerade

boedicca said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these folks?
> 
> _
> And if you hadnt heard it before now, you may be wondering who he was talking about.
> 
> Perhaps he was speaking to Hollywood  producer/directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, who were paid $170 million and $150 million, respectively, according to Forbes magazines 2009 list. Less generous, but still better than I and probably you, were Jerry Bruckheimer at $100 million and Atlantas Tyler Perry at $75 million. Or actors such as Harrison Ford ($65 million) or Adam Sandler ($55 million).
> 
> Then again, he might have been talking to Americas television stars. Dr. Phil (McGraw) pulled down $80 million, Forbes reports. Simon Cowell of American Idol was close behind at $75 million. And theres Oprah, our highest-paid celebrity, at $275 million.
> 
> But Oprah is one of the presidents biggest backers, so lets forget the big and little screens and turn to musicians. For all the challenges to that industry, Madonna managed to bring home $110 million. Theres Beyonce Knowles at $87 million; Bruce Springsteen, $70 million; Kenny Chesney and Dave Matthews Band, $65 million each; and a cool $60 million for the band Rascal Flatts.
> 
> I could mention athletes, but Tiger Woods was in a class of his own at $110 million (a figure he wont match this year)...._
> 
> Exactly who makes enough money in Obamas eyes? | Kyle Wingfield
Click to expand...

Yes!  Those people!


----------



## boedicca

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, they ARE currently industrialized.
> 
> If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.
> 
> They ARE industrialized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?*
> 
> So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?
Click to expand...




They're NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, you moron.   That is not mutually exclusive with still developing.


----------



## Flopper

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.


With ever president we dissect each speech, analyse each gesture, smiles, and frowns to prove some point.  If the president says you've made enough money, then that means he wants to redistribute the wealth.  He also said "I am an ardent believer in the free market."  So by the same logic, we conclude that his policies will favor business.  He bows his head to a foreign head of state, so we conclude that his policies will favor internationalism. 

We need to spend less time analyzing what political figures say and more time analyzing what they do.  Every politician lies.  They could not get elected if they didn't.


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.
> 
> You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.
> 
> Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times.  Moron.  Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently  industrialized countries.
Click to expand...


Yeah....but not the correct type of industrialized country. 

That's the sticking point. They have to fall into a specific class for them to be included.

How else are these newvo brain-farted dweebies gonna be able prove their point if they can't make exceptions and rationalizations.


----------



## QUENTIN

boedicca said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, they ARE currently industrialized.
> 
> If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.
> 
> They ARE industrialized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?*
> 
> So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, you moron.   That is not mutually exclusive with still developing.
Click to expand...


Read the links. You don't know what "newly industrialized countries," "developed," and "developing" mean in this context.

"Newly industrialized country" is a phrase used to describe a developing country further along in its process of industrialization than most other developing countries but still not developed. 

"Developed" = "Industrialized." They're direct synonyms in the context of national economies. One will redirect to the other, they're used interchangeably, along with the now out-of-favor "First World" and more PC "most developed countries." They all describe the same thing and are classified the  same way by the aforementioned IMF, UN, and CIA, which will refer to the same group of countries (which doesn't include China or Mexico) as "industrialized," "developed," or "most developed" depending on the venue and if they have to avoid offending Zimbabweans.

A newly industrialized country, as a country that is explicitly a developing country (appearing on all lists of developing countries) and not yet developed is not yet industrialized.

It's not mutually exclusive with developing at all, you're right on that, it's a unique subset of developing countries, it is however mutually exclusive with developed or industrialized.

It seems, unless you're just as dumb or stubborn as Si modo, you're taking the word "industrialized" in the phrase "Newly industrialized country" too literally.

So here's the definition again:



> *NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status *but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.





> The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. *Other terms sometimes used are* less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and *"non-industrialized nations".* *Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".*



It's all there in the definitions in the links already provided by myself and, ironically, Si modo. NICs are developing, or less developed, or underdeveloped, or non-industrialized nations that are expected to reach industrialization at some point in the relatively near future, they are not developed, or most economically developed, or First World, or industrialized nations.

Again I'll pose the question to Si modo that he's going to such great lengths to avoid answering:

*I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?*

If he doesn't answer, he has no answer, and has finally admitted he was wrong whether he's willing to state it plainly or not.


----------



## boedicca

I've read the thread and the links.

They're called NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, not Nearly Industrialized Countries.


----------



## mudwhistle

Flopper said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> With ever president we dissect each speech, analyse each gesture, smiles, and frowns to prove some point.  If the president says you've made enough money, then that means he wants to redistribute the wealth.  He also said "I am an ardent believer in the free market."  So by the same logic, we conclude that his policies will favor business.  He bows his head to a foreign head of state, so we conclude that his policies will favor internationalism.
> 
> We need to spend less time analyzing what political figures say and more time analyzing what they do.  Every politician lies.  They could not get elected if they didn't.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a case of over-analysis.

It's just called *"Paying attention to what the man is saying"*. Not saying over and over how well he says it.


----------



## QUENTIN

mudwhistle said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.
> 
> You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.
> 
> Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times.  Moron.  Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently  industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah....but not the correct type of industrialized country.
> 
> That's the sticking point. They have to fall into a specific class for them to be included.
> 
> How else are these newvo brain-farted dweebies gonna be able prove their point if they can't make exceptions and rationalizations.
Click to expand...


Not my "exceptions" or "rationalizations" - the UN, CIA, and IMF's standards. Words have meanings. Industrialized/developed and non-industrialized/developing are terms with specific recognized criteria established not by you or I but internationally respected bodies. NICs aren't actually recognized as a distinct group by the CIA, IMF, or UN, it's a classification some individual experts and economists use to differentiate a subset of developing countries, not an official designation. Another similar term not officially recognized by those international bodies but used by many economists is "emerging markets" which China and Mexico also are both classified as.

China and Mexico fail to meet the criteria established by the world community and economic analysts of the IMF, UN, and CIA for being industrialized or developed countries. They are instead classified as developing countries.

Again, since you apparently need to have it hammered home again and again for you:



> IMF advanced economies
>   Australia 	  Germany 	  Malta 	  South Korea
>   Austria 	  Greece 	  Netherlands 	  Spain
>   Belgium 	  Hong Kong 	  New Zealand 	  Sweden
>   Canada 	  Iceland 	  Norway 	  Switzerland
>   Cyprus 	  Ireland 	  Portugal 	  Taiwan
>   Czech Republic 	  Israel 	  San Marino[19] 	  United Kingdom
>   Denmark 	  Italy 	  Singapore 	  United States
>   Finland 	  Japan 	  Slovakia
>   France 	  Luxembourg 	  Slovenia





> The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009.[17]
> 
> *  Afghanistan
> *  Albania
> *  Algeria
> *  Angola
> *  Antigua and Barbuda
> *  Argentina
> *  Armenia
> *  Azerbaijan
> *  The Bahamas
> *  Bahrain
> *  Bangladesh
> *  Belarus
> *  Belize
> *  Benin
> *  Bhutan
> *  Bolivia
> *  Botswana
> *  Bosnia and Herzegovina
> *  Brazil
> *  Bulgaria
> *  Burkina Faso
> *  Burma
> *  Burundi
> *  Cameroon
> *  Cape Verde
> *  Central African Republic
> *  Chad
> *  Chile
> *    *  China*
> *  Colombia
> *  Comoros
> *  Democratic Republic of the Congo
> *  Republic of the Congo
> *  Costa Rica
> *  Côte d'Ivoire
> *  Croatia
> *  Djibouti
> *  Dominica
> *  Dominican Republic
> *  Ecuador
> *  Egypt
> *  El Salvador
> *  Equatorial Guinea
> *  Eritrea
> *  Ethiopia
> *  Fiji
> *  Gabon
> *  The Gambia
> *  Georgia
> *  Ghana
> *  Grenada
> *  Guatemala
> *  Guinea
> *  Guinea-Bissau
> *  Guyana
> *  Haiti
> *  Honduras
> *  Hungary
> *  Indonesia
> *  India
> *  Iran
> *  Iraq
> *  Jamaica
> *  Jordan
> *  Kazakhstan
> *  Kenya
> *  Kiribati
> *  Kuwait
> *  Kyrgyzstan
> *  Laos
> *  Latvia
> *  Lebanon
> *  Lesotho
> *  Liberia
> *  Libya
> *  Lithuania
> *  Macedonia
> *  Madagascar
> *  Malawi
> *  Malaysia
> *  Maldives
> *  Mali
> *  Marshall Islands[18]
> *  Mauritania
> *  Mauritius
> *    *  Mexico*



So to anyone who still tries to claim NICs are industrialized, I pose the same question.

*If China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?*

You're right and they're all wrong?


----------



## QUENTIN

boedicca said:


> I've read the thread and the links.
> 
> They're called NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, not Nearly Industrialized Countries.



You too are taking the phrase too literally and ignoring the fact that it's a politically correct euphemism used to not offend the many people who were offended by being called "Third World" and "underdeveloped" and so on. It's explained that way rather clearly in a link that's been quoted again and again. Newly industrialized countries actually does mean "Nearly industrialized countries," that is its definition. 

An NIC is like an adolescent or young teen on their way to becoming an adult, they're no longer a young kid, but they're not yet an adult either. They're in a transition period where they're still classified by all standards as minors (developing) but all it'll take is some time to move past that since they're nearly adults (developed). In the same way that 13 &#8800; 18, newly industrialized country &#8800; industrialized. 

Yet again:


> *NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.





> *The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".*



Industrialized = First World = developed. NICs are explicitly not First World, not developed, not industrialized but rather developing and nearer to being industrialized than the rest of their developing counterparts.

They are categorically not industrialized countries and NO ONE classifies them as such. Again, check the IMF, UN, CIA, World Bank, they're not industrialized nations according to anyone except a handful of posters in this thread.

I'm starting to wonder how many people here speak English as a first language.


----------



## boedicca

You can continue to spin it however you wish.  They are Newly Industrialized Countries.   Their economies are fueled by industrialization.  They are industrialized.  And that's a fact, Jack.


----------



## QUENTIN

boedicca said:


> You can continue to spin it however you wish.  They are Newly Industrialized Countries.   Their economies are fueled by industrialization.  They are industrialized.  And that's a fact, Jack.



You're the one spinning it and ignoring plain and clear definitions as well as the classification of every world expert, being uncommonly daft. And China's economy is still primarily agricultural, not industrialized. 

Economy of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Labor force by occupation: agriculture (39.5%), services (33.2%), industry (27.2%) (2009)



Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

They're developing, not industrialized. And that's a fact, ignoramus.

Funny how _no one_ vainly attempting to claim they're industrialized countries will touch the fact that the UN, IMF, CIA, and World Bank say they're not.


----------



## boedicca

It's clear you are committed to persisting in a constant state of denial regarding the vast amount of evidence Si Modo and others have provided to you.

Enjoy your ignorance; it appears to be your major attribute.


----------



## QUENTIN

boedicca said:


> It's clear you are committed to persisting in a constant state of denial regarding the vast amount of evidence Si Modo and others have provided to you.
> 
> Enjoy your ignorance; it appears to be your major attribute.



Yeah, all those vast amounts of evidence. Like the evidence from the IMF, UN, and CIA saying China and Mexico are industrialized and...oh wait.


----------



## saveliberty

Over twenty-four hours of defending your stupid attack.  Just give it a rest QUENTIN.  You need to realize many of the countries are placed on those lists to give them special status for US aid give aways.  It has little to do with their industrialization.  Which, is different from developing although you refuse to admit it.


----------



## JBeukema

QUENTIN said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're deflecting.
> 
> It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are *not* industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.
> 
> Now...
> 
> How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what *you* did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.
> 
> You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.
> 
> How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.  I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE.  Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.  (Third time posting the link...amazing.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






QUENTIN said:


> Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICs are countries whose economies* have not yet reached First World status* but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented).* Incipient or ongoing industrialization* is an important indicator of a NIC.
> 
> 
> 
> (third time posting these explanations...amazing).
> 
> In addition to the IMF, here's the CIA's current, present tense reiteration: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *developing countries*
> a term used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the bottom group in its hierarchy of advanced economies, countries in transition, and developing countries; IMF statistics include the following 126 developing countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, *China*, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, *Mexico*, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe; note - this category would presumably also cover the following 46 other countries that are traditionally included in the more comprehensive group of "less developed countries": American Samoa, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Cook Islands, Cuba, Eritrea, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gaza Strip, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, North Korea, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Tokelau, Tonga, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's clear that despite the information contained within your link, you still don't know what a "Newly industrialized country" is. They're countries that ARE not industrialized, but are in the PROCESS of becoming industrialized. To again analogize economic development to human development, they're adolescents who have outpaced their child counterparts but are not yet adults. You keep insisting a 13-year-old is an adult because it's no longer a baby and sure is growing up fast.
> 
> NICs are not industrialized countries or developed countries, they are the develop*ing* countries most rapidly going through the *process of industrialization*.
> 
> Again, the UN, IMF, and CIA, the three major international bodies of economic classification are in agreement that China and Mexico are not industrialized.
> 
> How you can still claim otherwise, despite the evidence provided in your own links and now thrice highlighted here for you is rather amazing.
> 
> It's like talking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...

I think we've established by this point that you're wasting your breath; they don't care about the facts.


----------



## JBeukema

QUENTIN said:


> You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?



You're addressing the same crowd who declared Merriam Webster, Princeton University, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica wrong about the definition of 'democracy'. They're very self-important and they love to redefine words.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're addressing the same crowd who declared Merriam Webster, Princeton University, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica wrong about the definition of 'democracy'. They're very self-important and they love to redefine words.
Click to expand...


Really?  I don't recall doing that.  Don't lie.

The UN, IMF, and the CIA call those countries newly industrialized so I guess that means they are not industrailized.  

Now, my point is (and the weak-of-character, Quentin, cannot admit his error) that he was inaccurate in his claims from the start.  IF one makes it a habit to support their claims from the start, he would not have *been* inaccurate.

Now, he was not only inaccurate, he is grossly disingenuous and obviously weak of character.

I am particular about accuracy; if it is not present, I cannot make a rational opinion about the topic.


----------



## JBeukema

Si modo said:


> Really?  I don't recall doing that.  Don't lie.



I was referring to Bo and the others you've joined in this thread.


> The UN, IMF, and the CIA call those countries newly industrialized so I guess that means they are not industrailized.



Context and comprehension. They clearly draw a distinction between 'industrialized' (fully industrialized first-world nations and 'newly industrialized' (recently undergoing industrializing and continuing to develop towards first-world development). This is clear from the definitions quentin linked to and the lists the CIA and WMF put together.


> Now, my point is (and the weak-of-character, Quentin, cannot admit his error) that he was inaccurate in his claims from the start.  IF one makes it a habit to support their claims from the start, he would not have *been* inaccurate.



His only inaccurate claim was saying America was #1; he later corrected himself and clarified that it is #2 on some lists.





> Now, he was not only inaccurate, he is grossly disingenuous and obviously weak of character.



You're the ones being disingenuous by trying to compare the USA, which is an industrialized nation with relatively few regions that are not fully developed (think remote regions of the Ozarks or Death Valley) to nations like China with huge regions that have changed little since the days of Mao and have relatively few developed metropolitan areas.


----------



## JBeukema

Anyone care to discuss how wealth disparity, standard of living, and sociopolitical influence (power) are related to eachother?


----------



## QUENTIN

Si modo said:


> The UN, IMF, and the CIA call those countries newly industrialized so I guess that means they are not industrailized.



No they don't. For someone claiming to love accuracy, you sure don't practice it.

The IMF's list of developing countries, reiterated by the CIA, has been posted again and again in this thread.

"Newly industrialized country" is not a term recognized by the IMF, UN, or CIA. Read your own link why don't you? It's a term some economists use to differentiate among developing countries. It's not an official classification used by any of those major agencies. The UN, IMF, and CIA have only the list of developed, industrialized nations and developing, non-industrialized nations.

All three list China and Mexico on the list of developing, non-industrialized nations, and none of them list them on the list of developed, industrialized nations, as has been shown time and again.

JBeukema, thanks. It's good to see not everyone here is so stubbornly dishonest and disingenuous.

I checked that democracy thread you mentioned and was amazed. It was _exactly_ the same game played by exactly the same people. It's like a mirror of this thread. You cited respected, official sources and demonstrated what democracy means, they ignored them, used their own misunderstanding to form an argument based only on their ignorance of the terms they used, and then mocked you for being right and able to prove it.

You're also right that it's a waste of time to keep it up. Both threads contain all the evidence anyone with a remote sense of intellectual honesty or reading comprehension needs to recognize what is true and backed up and what is false and distorted. If these guys can't engage in discussion and have to resort to hypocrisy and outright lies, it's just their loss.


----------



## QUENTIN

JBeukema said:


> Anyone care to discuss how wealth disparity, standard of living, and sociopolitical influence (power) are related to eachother?



Of course not. Nothing to see here. It's so much easier to nitpick then insult.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.



It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?


----------



## HUGGY

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
Click to expand...


If it might make Obama look bad..*You know they do!*


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it might make Obama look bad..*You know they do!*
Click to expand...


I really don't think he needs much help from anyone for that, he's doing a bang up job all on his own.


----------



## HUGGY

Newby said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it might make Obama look bad..*You know they do!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't think he needs much help from anyone for that, he's doing a bang up job all on his own.
Click to expand...


Some kids go to school to learn and better themselves.  Some kids go to school because they have to.  They don't try very hard and don't get much out of it.  Some kids go to schoool to act out bad behavior.  They don't care about anyone else.  They sit in the back and chew gum..Ipod in ears throwing spitwads...Those kids have stupidly burnt all bridges and have nothing to lose by being a distraction to the progress of all others.  When asked why they disrupt the environment they share with others ...they have no answer..I wish they would just stay home.


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it might make Obama look bad..*You know they do!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think he needs much help from anyone for that, he's doing a bang up job all on his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some kids go to school to learn and better themselves.  Some kids go to school because they have to.  They don't try very hard and don't get much out of it.  Some kids go to schoool to act out bad behavior.  They don't care about anyone else.  They sit in the back and chew gum..Ipod in ears throwing spitwads...Those kids have stupidly burnt all bridges and have nothing to lose by being a distraction to the progress of all others.  When asked why they disrupt the environment they share with others ...they have no answer..*I wish they would just stay home*.
Click to expand...


So, why don't you?


----------



## HUGGY

Newby said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think he needs much help from anyone for that, he's doing a bang up job all on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some kids go to school to learn and better themselves.  Some kids go to school because they have to.  They don't try very hard and don't get much out of it.  Some kids go to schoool to act out bad behavior.  They don't care about anyone else.  They sit in the back and chew gum..Ipod in ears throwing spitwads...Those kids have stupidly burnt all bridges and have nothing to lose by being a distraction to the progress of all others.  When asked why they disrupt the environment they share with others ...they have no answer..*I wish they would just stay home*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, why don't you?
Click to expand...


I'm 60 dolt.  But to add truth to your stupid reply...  I spent most of my senior high school year snow and water skiing.


----------



## rightwinger

"I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money" 

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some kids go to school to learn and better themselves.  Some kids go to school because they have to.  They don't try very hard and don't get much out of it.  Some kids go to schoool to act out bad behavior.  They don't care about anyone else.  They sit in the back and chew gum..Ipod in ears throwing spitwads...Those kids have stupidly burnt all bridges and have nothing to lose by being a distraction to the progress of all others.  When asked why they disrupt the environment they share with others ...they have no answer..*I wish they would just stay home*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 60 dolt.  But to add truth to your stupid reply...  I spent most of my senior high school year snow and water skiing.
Click to expand...


That explains a lot.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I wonder if George Soros has gotten that memo?

The hypocrisy knows no bounds with this bunch.


----------



## Si modo

JBeukema said:


> Anyone care to discuss how wealth disparity, standard of living, and sociopolitical influence (power) are related to eachother?


Yes, that would be helpful as views on that provide some fundamental differences in socialist and other ideologies.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
Click to expand...


Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start.  Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed.  Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation. 

You ain't gonna fix the problem by letting the same crooks who gave us the problem propose the fixes.


----------



## Si modo

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
Click to expand...

Guess who didn't favor regulations on them.  Barney Frank.


----------



## saveliberty

SpidermanTuba said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
Click to expand...


IF, they are trying to stop "too big to fail", why is there a too big to fail slush fund in the bill?


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion



That is fine, but I don't see them having the power to stop others via legislation from making as much as they can.

That is the difference in between Obama and Gates or Buffet.

If President Obama leaves it at, "I do think at a certain piont you've made enough money" and does not act on it, then I can respect his opinion.  If he takes tax code actions to make sure people don't make more than that certain point, then I have a problem with it.

Immie


----------



## DiamondDave

rightwinger said:


> "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion



But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them


----------



## The T

Soggy in NOLA said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start. Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed. Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation.
> 
> You ain't gonna fix the problem by letting the same crooks who gave us the problem propose the fixes.
Click to expand...

 
Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?

And the question applies to any Government anywhere.


----------



## boedicca

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them
Click to expand...




It's so typical.  The "penance" for success practiced by many very wealthy people.  They get to rub shoulders with famous politicians and celebrities, and soak up the progressive faux loathing for wealth.

They get to have their cake and eat it too.  As long as they publicly mouth the proper criticisms and policies in favor of progressivism, they get to continue to enjoy many houses, private airplanes, etc.   They buy Indulgences with their comments to continue whatever Feels Good for them personally.

Buffett and Gates have already shielded the bulk of their wealth in trusts.  They won't be affected by the taxes they advocate for the rest of us.   See, it's so easy!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

The T said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite amazing that the same morons (you) who opposed bailing out these "to big to fail" mega financials don't favor legislation to prevent them from being getting that big again. Do you WANT the economy to fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start. Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed. Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation.
> 
> You ain't gonna fix the problem by letting the same crooks who gave us the problem propose the fixes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?
> 
> And the question applies to any Government anywhere.
Click to expand...


It's too big already and it has already failed.  Unfortunately, the current mentality in D.C. is that we haven't spent _*enough*_ money.  Fits the lcassic definition of insanity in my book.  If it doesn't work, double down on it.. if that doesn't work, double down on that... and so on and so on.  Also fits the classic definition of arrogance... "I know this has _*never*_ worked, but only because _*I *_haven't done it"


----------



## boedicca

The T said:


> Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?
> 
> And the question applies to any Government anywhere.





The better question:  Is Government to Big to Function (or exist)?


----------



## The T

Soggy in NOLA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start. Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed. Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation.
> 
> You ain't gonna fix the problem by letting the same crooks who gave us the problem propose the fixes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?
> 
> And the question applies to any Government anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's too big already and it has already failed. Unfortunately, the current mentality in D.C. is that we haven't spent _*enough*_ money. Fits the lcassic definition of insanity in my book. If it doesn't work, double down on it.. if that doesn't work, double down on that... and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly. Vicious circle isn't it? Something's gonna break eventually. We already see it in Greece...don't we?


----------



## Si modo

Even this administration says their own budget is "unsustainable".


----------



## rightwinger

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them
Click to expand...



Obama was merely stating his personal opinion on reasonable bounds for personal wealth. When he starts passing laws come and see me.......until that time...quit your petty bitching


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

The T said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?
> 
> And the question applies to any Government anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too big already and it has already failed. Unfortunately, the current mentality in D.C. is that we haven't spent _*enough*_ money. Fits the lcassic definition of insanity in my book. If it doesn't work, double down on it.. if that doesn't work, double down on that... and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Vicious circle isn't it? Something's gonna break eventually. We already see it in Greece...don't we?
Click to expand...


These people see  that it hasn't worked... but only because they haven't been involved... they are the enlightened ones that will get it right.


----------



## JBeukema

Keynesians...


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffet reached the same conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was merely stating his personal opinion on reasonable bounds for personal wealth. When he starts passing laws come and see me.......until that time...quit your petty bitching
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.


----------



## The T

Soggy in NOLA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start. Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed. Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation.
> 
> You ain't gonna fix the problem by letting the same crooks who gave us the problem propose the fixes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post. You wanna know what has yet to be asked? Is Government too BIG to fail?  [And who's gonna bail them out when they fail the U.S. Taxpayer when they ruin the economy of not only the United States, but the rest of the world?
> 
> And the question applies to any Government anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's too big already and it has already failed. Unfortunately, the current mentality in D.C. is that we haven't spent _*enough*_ money. Fits the lcassic definition of insanity in my book. If it doesn't work, double down on it.. if that doesn't work, double down on that... and so on and so on. Also fits the classic _*definition of arrogance*_... "I know this has _*never*_ worked, but only because _*I *_haven't done it"
Click to expand...

 

I answer this again because what you added...and you're so correct. And nevermind that History would show them to be the fools that they are for the repeat performance and dragging the rest of us with them.


----------



## The T

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was merely stating his personal opinion on reasonable bounds for personal wealth. When he starts passing laws come and see me.......until that time...quit your petty bitching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly correct. His ideology is what drives him. His Ideology has bankrupted this Republic. He knows what needs to be done. But to do so would admit the failure of himself -AND- his ideology to boot.

His arrogance, his pride, his narcissism won't allow it. He continues to blame others to compensate.


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> But funny.. government nor government officials came to that conclusion FOR them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was merely stating his personal opinion on reasonable bounds for personal wealth. When he starts passing laws come and see me.......until that time...quit your petty bitching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
Click to expand...


Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest

Helping working Americans= Socialism


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was merely stating his personal opinion on reasonable bounds for personal wealth. When he starts passing laws come and see me.......until that time...quit your petty bitching
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest
> 
> Helping working Americans= Socialism
Click to expand...

I don't play with strawmen.

His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.


----------



## boedicca

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest
> 
> Helping working Americans= Socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't play with strawmen.
> 
> His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.
Click to expand...



Indeed.

And it's important to understand to whom the redistribution is aimed:  Public Employee Unions and other political cronies.

Now he's targeting the 401Ks of private sector employees to bail out the underfunded pensions of unionized employees.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Having the U.S. Government not strongarming them into making loans to people with no assets or incomes would be a great start.




There is no law requiring banks to make bad loans and sell them to investors as good loans, you are mistaken. If its the CRA you are thinking of, most of the bad loans that were made were made by institutions not bound by the CRA regulations. The large investment banks, for instance, are not covered under the CRA.

Believe it or not, its not intrinsically risky to make loans to poor and minorities. No law ever required that banks make loans to the poor that were bigger then they could reasonably afford, nor did any law compel them to make loans to poor people with bad credit histories.  But because the banks were able to package these shitty loans and sell them investors as grade A investments, they didn't give a fuck.



> Notice however, how that not-so-small part of the problem is never addressed.  Unfortunately, this bill being floated around will ensure a permanent "too big to fail" situation.



What does this bill do? Does it not limit the size of investment banks?


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama has made it clear that his ideology is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest
> 
> Helping working Americans= Socialism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't play with strawmen.
> 
> His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.
Click to expand...


Strawman......prove it with facts not what you just heared on Rush Limbaugh


----------



## boedicca

SpidermanTuba said:


> [
> 
> There is no law requiring banks to make bad loans and sell them to investors as good loans, you are mistaken. If its the CRA you are thinking of, most of the bad loans that were made were made by institutions not bound by the CRA regulations. The large investment banks, for instance, are not covered under the CRA.





Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to have 55% of the loans they bought be for people who make less than the median income in the U.S.   

Banks were threatened with revocation or non-approval of bank charters if they didn't meet specific minority and low income loan quotas.

So, you are wrong.  As usual.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

boedicca said:


> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to have 55% of the loans they bought be for people who make less than the median income in the U.S.



Are you telling me any loan to a person making less than median income is a bad loan? Really?

And if Fannie and Freddie were being forced to do such a thing against their will, tell me why it is that the investment banks did the exact same thing of their own free will?



> Banks were threatened with revocation or non-approval of bank charters if they didn't meet specific minority and low income loan quotas.


Please show me the law that said what percentage of these loans had to be made to people that could not afford them.


----------



## boedicca

It set the stage for No Doc loans, which were derisked with Tax Payer money.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helping the wealthiest Americans= Capitalism at its finest
> 
> Helping working Americans= Socialism
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play with strawmen.
> 
> His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman......prove it with facts not what you just heared on Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...

As I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh says except when a leftie whines about it, I have no idea what that means.

But, the idea of redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet.  Obama (and many Democrats) believes that wealth needs to be redistributed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo]YouTube - Max Baucus on Obamacare's hidden agenda - redistribution of wealth[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM]YouTube - Obama-Spread the wealth around[/ame]


----------



## boedicca

Hold onto your 401Ks!  It's going to be a bumpy redistribution!


----------



## The T

boedicca said:


> *It set the stage for No Doc loans, which were derisked with Tax Payer money*.


 
Fact.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

boedicca said:


> *It set the stage* for No Doc loans, which were derisked with Tax Payer money.



How did it "set the stage"?


----------



## Kerry Won Ohio

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.



A "socialist pig" who has received millions of dollars in contributions from Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street.  Doesn't sound like much of a "socialist" to me.  I seriously doubt a dumb ass like you can explain this contradiction.

You live in an alternate reality, you unsophisticated rube, and you know not of what you speak.


----------



## bucs90

Most shocking is the libera's absolute refusal to see reality of what their savior is doing. Someone on this thread demanded proof that Obama wants to redistribute wealth?!?!?!

Um, he said it, in the campaign, 4 feet from a private citizen. Did you miss Joe the Plumber? "When you share the wealth"????

"Wealth" means someone makes more than someone else. When you "share the wealth" you give away or have taken away the excess difference to make you equal with those who don't have it. Without have-nots and have-lesses, you don't have "wealth". "Wealth" is nothing but having more than the average, and is relative. "Wealth" in Nigeria is not the same as wealth in Beverly Hills.

SO, Obama believes "share the wealth" so everyone comes to one equal standing, regardless of how hard one works, how smart one is, or how efficient or effective a business is. Basically......thats socialis......oh, dang it, forgot it's Obama. Sorry guys, OOOOBama you so fine you so fine you blow my mind OBAMA!!! OBAMA!!! OOOOOBAMA you so fine you so fine you blow my mind OBAMA!! OBAMA!!! 

Is that better?


----------



## bucs90

Seer Travis said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play with strawmen.
> 
> His desire to redistribute wealth is clear and a tenet of socialist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> And it's important to understand to whom the redistribution is aimed:  Public Employee Unions and other political cronies.
> 
> Now he's targeting the 401Ks of private sector employees to bail out the underfunded pensions of unionized employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A capitalistic society would never allow the poor caste of citizen-slave to receive any genuine and legitimate fiscal escape.
> 
> ---------
> For more information on My posts visit My website blog at TM8k which explains My philosophy.
Click to expand...


Sure it would. In our capitalist system, the fiscal escape for the "poor caste of citizen-slave" is: Education, hard work, responsibility. 

I know, sounds like the Temple of Doom, but it's there for the takers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Kerry Won Ohio said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "socialist pig" who has received millions of dollars in contributions from Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street.  Doesn't sound like much of a "socialist" to me.  I seriously doubt a dumb ass like you can explain this contradiction.
> 
> You live in an alternate reality, you unsophisticated rube, and you know not of what you speak.
Click to expand...


Kerry Won Ohio talking about anothers in Alternate reality


----------



## sweetie

....to paraphrase one wag, "hopefully someday, you petty, bickering, goddamned, republicrat fools strike the root$ of the tree of evil/injustice..rather than merely flailing at the leaves...

...it seems anyone who has HONESTLY looked into 'our' stinking fucking filthy rotten 'money (issuance) system' has come to the conclusion it is at the root of the rot..

...unfortunately, VERY VERY VERY few of you brainwashed republicrat louts have ever honestly looked into this ma$$ive abomination...

...i KNOW from years of experience that you republicrat pecksniffs don't even know/understand the simple basics of this hideous 'money (issuance, etc.) system'..how 'dollars' originate..how 'dollars' get into circulation..how many 'dollars' are extant...who's in 'control'...etc..

...and it seems to me that because you fucking republicrat meatheads are not in possession of any honest under$tandings here, your 'opinions'/ideas about 'political issues' involving 'illions of 'dollars' aren't worth jack shit..

stfu republicrats..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..   

Charles August Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation and *in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."* 

"The financial system [...] has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of [...] a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."


----------



## Si modo

sweetie said:


> ....to paraphrase one wag, "hopefully someday, you petty, bickering, goddamned, republicrat fools strike the root$ of the tree of evil/injustice..rather than merely flailing at the leaves...
> 
> ...it seems anyone who has HONESTLY looked into 'our' stinking fucking filthy rotten 'money (issuance) system' has come to the conclusion it is at the root of the rot..
> 
> ...unfortunately, VERY VERY VERY few of you brainwashed republicrat louts have ever honestly looked into this ma$$ive abomination...
> 
> ...i KNOW from years of experience that you republicrat pecksniffs don't even know/understand the simple basics of this hideous 'money (issuance, etc.) system'..how 'dollars' originate..how 'dollars' get into circulation..how many 'dollars' are extant...who's in 'control'...etc..
> 
> ...and it seems to me that because you fucking republicrat meatheads are not in possession of any honest under$tandings here, your 'opinions'/ideas about 'political issues' involving 'illions of 'dollars' aren't worth jack shit..
> 
> stfu republicrats..
> 
> ..the rest of you, have a good day!..
> 
> Charles August Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation and *in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."*
> 
> "The financial system [...] has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of [...] a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."


----------



## Kerry Won Ohio

Nonelitist said:


> RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
> 
> 
> 
> None of your damn business you socialist pig.



Obama is a "socialist" who accepts millions of dollars in contributions from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.  Do you care to explain this contradiction, simpleton?

Face it -- you are an unsophisticated, uninformed rube who has no fucking clue what you're talking about.

It is your poor trash Repug peasant duty to protect the wealth of your rich Repug feudal lords and you do a great job at it.  They are your superiors, after all.


----------



## GilbertArizona

A questioner doing an Obama impersonation.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU]YouTube - Jim Calhoun Owns Reporter (Ken Krayeske)[/ame]


----------



## SpidermanTuba

bucs90 said:


> =
> Sure it would. In our capitalist system, the fiscal escape for the "poor caste of citizen-slave" is: Education, hard work, responsibility.



How are they supposed to get educated with no money?


----------



## JBeukema

SpidermanTuba said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> =
> Sure it would. In our capitalist system, the fiscal escape for the "poor caste of citizen-slave" is: Education, hard work, responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they supposed to get educated with no money?
Click to expand...

Socialized Education and the redistribution of wealth via public ownership of property (books) to be controlled by the government (libraries).


----------

