# Rush tells NY to DROP DEAD...



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.

ROFLMNAO...  

Ya just have to LOVE the Big guy...

Now we can hear the NY Left-heads complian about how the government LET  those RICH-FOLKSmove out and take their income with them!

LOL... Leftists...


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.


----------



## Toro (Mar 31, 2009)

Why wouldn't he move his operation to Florida where he already resides?


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.




The man is a fat sloth.  Texas will welcome him.  Maybe he and W can sit around, drink some beer, take some illegal drugs, and tell war stories.  You know, like W's National Guard days.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

That's a good question, though...he is a resident of Florida as far as I know so why would he move anything from NY?


----------



## gezztoo (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.



We will be happy to have him in Texas...home of that great American..."W"....


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Toro said:


> Why wouldn't he move his operation to Florida where he already resides?



Diversification...  two locations are less likely to suffer the same catastrophe.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Why wouldn't he move his operation to Florida where he already resides?
> ...


You only get to claim residency in one state.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.



Its why I live here...  I've worked in most states at one time or another and where there was a state income tax, I never established a lease, or anything else which could be considered a point of domecile...  I spent a fair bit of my young life passing out fliers to neighbors and clients of my Dad's business everytime that reprobate "Walkin' Lawton" decided to float an income tax here.

And when the next idiot floats the idea, I'll hit the street to kick their ass as well... and if they ever get the votes to pass one... I'm headin' BACK TO TEXAS!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



If you remember what your point is... try to get back to us.

The rule is where you earn the income, you pay the taxes...   NY considered hi a resident on whatever period of time he worked in NY...  which is why he moved to Florida in the first place.  But he had to go back occassionally, particularly during the hurricanes... 

So they've decided to punish producers and he's decided to vote with his feet... a wonderfully American thing to do!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

Jesus Christ, Pubic is a Floridian???

I need a drink.

So Pubic, not only are you a wingnut, but you're a dishonest tax dodging wingnut?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


So he's a scumbucket. And this is news because?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Jesus Christ, Pubic is a Floridian???
> 
> I need a drink.
> 
> So Pubic, not only are you a wingnut, but you're a dishonest tax dodging wingnut?



Well sport, I'd say the odds are that I have been a Floridian longer than you have...  I'd say that the odds are fairly strong that you came here from somewhere else, as the majority of those who 'call themselves' Floridians do.

And if you'd like to produce the evidence that I've failed to pay my taxes, then produce it or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Sarah G (Mar 31, 2009)

Maybe Rush can take his fans and secede from the Union.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ, Pubic is a Floridian???
> ...


I was born here, twinkie...and your own post above describes you dodging around to avoid paying state income taxes.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Born when? And where?  The East coast? Way back in the 80s?  

Not my state taxes...  Because I don't live in states which double dip income.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.







I just gotta tell you what a DUmmie you are. Jeez!


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...









Hello *HELLO*   Florida is one of the few States which does not have a State Income Tax so don't feel bad for not paying them.. Let Ravi pay them.. roflmao


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.
> ...


Thanks...I can see where Rush would need two domiciles...gotta spread that fat ass out over more than one state.

But yes, enjoying the benefits of a state while avoiding paying their taxes is unethical...not that you people really care about state's rights or anything, except as a talking point.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...






why don't you provide us with a list of Republicans who haven't paid their taxes??? Let's see if it's a long as the obamalama's list of appointees.. Fun!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 31, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


Sarah Palin was the most recent. But way to avoid my point, Lizzie.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...






one? that all ya got Medusa??


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Maybe Rush can take his fans and secede from the Union.




No... We'll take this for as long as it's tolerable, then when you've passed that point, we'll just take it back by whatever means is necessary...

And it's safe to say that when that happens, you'll be all a flitter as to 'how this could have happen'...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO...

You idiots have not had a SINGLE PERSON to come into the Hussein cabinet that has not been 'taxually challenged' and you want to point to Sarah Palin as a Tax CHEAT?

Solly Cholly... 

But the Hussein Regime is to Tax fraud, what the Clinton Regime is to Blow Jobs...  "Everyone does it'...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


actually, i'd like to see her prove that Palin was a tax cheat


----------



## DavidS (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> ...



I hope Rush Limbaugh dies of AIDS.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 31, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Maybe Rush can take his fans and secede from the Union.


 
No...that's Hannity and Friends.


----------



## xsited1 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



  Ravi has got some great troll posts!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

DavidS said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.
> ...


he doesnt participate in the activities you do david, so his chances are less than yours'


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

Ravi said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



States can charge whoever consents to being taxed any tax they want...  More power to them...  I refuse to be subjected to a tax on my income by a state, when I am already subjected to a tax on my income by the Federal government; as a result I do not and will not live in a state where such a policy is in place.

And while Rush apparently was more tolerant of such nonsense, he apparently has hit his limit


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

DavidS said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.
> ...



And there ya go kids... the perfection of secularism... Social Science in bloom..  Tolerance and compassion for the differing ideas of others... ON PARADE!  

It's the Change you've hoped for...  It's what you can look forward to when you give power to Socialists...

Now imagine, Dave's appointed to managae some bureacracy in the new 'nationalized healthcare system...'  with the power to approve and deny medical care...  

(Thanks Dave... if I would have asserted that you're a pathetic promoter of IRRATIONAL HATRED... you'd have demanded PROOF!  So thanks again)


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 31, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Well that's the point DC... EVERYONE is a tax cheat...  (because the Hussein regime is 'taxually challenged')


----------



## DavidS (Mar 31, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > I hope Rush Limbaugh dies of AIDS.
> ...



Anyone who reads my posts knows that I'm not the most tolerant human being in the world. Hell, not even close. I'm not a fucking liberal. I felt Obama was the best choice between him and that old geaser and woman who would still burn a witch at a stake if she had a good match.

I do not have irrational hatred of Rush Limbaugh. My hatred for him is extremely rational. He's an over rated blow hard who says stupid things to get ratings and makes millions of dollars a year convincing you morons that he actually believes the shit he spews out of his mouth.

The assembly is going to raise income taxes on those making $1 million a year NET (after deductions) from 8.47% to 8.97%. 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090329/NEWS01/903290336/1002/rss01

Holy shit, a full fucking half percent! How the hell are you going to survive?? That's a whole $5,000 per $1 million. For an asshole that makes $38 million a year, that's $190,000 extra he'll have to pay in taxes. Wahhh, wahhhh, wahhh. Poor widdle wimabugh. How the fuck else do you propose to eliminate the budget gap? Cut spending on nursing homes, hospitals and schools? Put tolls on bridges that low income workers use? 

Have you seen the fucking size of Limbaugh's house? 

Virtual Globetrotting: Rush Limbaugh's House

He can afford the tax increase. I'm sick and tired of hearing the rich people complaint and bitch and moan - because it's the middle and lower class people like myself who support the rich people. And if WE have less income, then WE can't afford to buy the products the advertisers on the Rush Limabugh program promote. And without advertisers, Rush Limabugh has no $100 million signing bonus.

Hey, Rush, from all of NY'ers to YOU:

DROP DEAD. NOW!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2009)

DavidS said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...


whats wrong, you jealous that Rush has a nice house?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Apr 1, 2009)

$500,000??? Wow, that must be what? A deleterious whole 1% of the population of the state? 

So sad = (


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> $500,000??? Wow, that must be what? A deleterious whole 1% of the population of the state?
> 
> So sad = (


when they move out, who will you tax then?

not only wont you get the extra you were hoping for, you will also lose what you were already getting

nice move


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 1, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Rush can take his fans and secede from the Union.
> ...



That too.  Hannity and Rush can move to the EIB state out in the dessert somewhere.


----------



## editec (Apr 1, 2009)

I'm reasonable sure that the Empire State will survive with Limbough being there.

Americans often move to avoid state taxes.

I know of at least two self proclaiming liberals, who, upon realizing that they'd have to pay state taxes when their parents kicked off, move to New Hampshire.

This is the sort of liberal scion who I believe is mostly responsible for why so many people hate liberals, BTW.

It is these type of hypocrites who typically control organizations that most of you conservatives think respresent real liberalism.

They are, basically, the good cops in the good cop/bad cop sham that is our poltical system.

Basically what they are is spoiled human beings who talk talk talk about how we all must sacrifice, but what they really mean is people like myself must sacrifice while they live off the checks they cash which are coming from the corporate state they claim to hate.


----------



## YWN666 (Apr 1, 2009)

NY returns the sentiment.


----------



## YWN666 (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Maybe Rush can take his fans and secede from the Union.




There is a little island in San Francisco harbor that they could move to.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 1, 2009)

YWN666 said:


> NY returns the sentiment.



He has let his extreme fan base give him such an overblown self-image..  He's hiding a lot of problems under all that fat and behind that enormous ego.


----------



## YWN666 (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > NY returns the sentiment.
> ...



His rabid fans look past his shortcomings.


----------



## DavidS (Apr 1, 2009)

YWN666 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Honestly, I don't think his fans care about his dick. I don't think he cares about his dick because I doubt he's even seen his dick in years.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > $500,000??? Wow, that must be what? A deleterious whole 1% of the population of the state?
> ...



Move the fuck where? Oh no!!! We have to let the rich do WHATEVER they want because we need to keep sucking at the trickle of breadcrumbs that falls from their beards. Show me some evidence for this, that people do in fact, just move. If you got taxed a bit more, DiveCon, you'd just leave America? Just like that? Hmmmm.... Not much of a patriot, huh?

Tell me something, why is it that the US, Canada, Japan, and Europe (i.e. Developed Countries), have way higher taxes AND people actually MOVE there? How does that fit your little model? So where's the flood of rich to Somalia? Bet they've got pretty light taxes there. Fuck, there'd be nobody left in Europe now, with their taxes. 

Hahaha... 2.8 Billion people in the planet are living with less than $2 a day, and you people complain that 0.5% of the population of one of your states is getting taxed higher. Boo hoo, indeed.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 1, 2009)

They should audit him before he leaves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> They should audit him before he leaves.



Or they should leave him alone because he should be free to do as he pleases.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

YWN666 said:


> NY returns the sentiment.


again, they'll miss his tax dollars


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...


no, asshole, leave that state
not america
you are a fucking MORON


----------



## YWN666 (Apr 1, 2009)

DavidS said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...




He can read about it in Ann Coulter's column.


----------



## YWN666 (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > NY returns the sentiment.
> ...




Does NY have an asshole tax?


----------



## driveby (Apr 1, 2009)

YWN666 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



If it did Chuck Schumer would be broke......


----------



## DavidS (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > NY returns the sentiment.
> ...



It's ok. We still have Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...


for how long
LOL
how do you know they wont leave too


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 1, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> ...



NY is fastly becoming the stupidest state in the Union! IL is closely behind them. Our dickhead unelected governor wants to raise corporate and income taxes to rank right their with the highest in the country. We already have the highest sales tax at 10.5% and the highest prepared food tax at 12%. Our gas tax is up their as the highest. Our liquor and tabacco tax is also. They just raised licensing across the board! Now the city of Chicago, sold all the meters to a private corporation, one of the only cash crops for the city.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 1, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



And many others.  In NY, Rush is a little fish in a big pond.  

He had a great idea with AM Radio and he has made big money with it.  He is overestimating his power just a little though.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


not according to your hero, Obama


----------



## jillian (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> not according to your hero, Obama



Obama wasn't the one genuflecting to him... that was your RNC chair.


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 1, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> $500,000??? Wow, that must be what? A deleterious whole 1% of the population of the state?
> 
> So sad = (



I heard on the news that 42,000 New Yorkers pay 60% of the taxes in NY. 42,000 of the 19 mil people. What does NY do if these people pick up their business and go to Texas, like so many businesses have been doing? Trust Rush is not the first or the last of these 42,000 people to make the move to Texas! Shit here in Chicago we are losing a lot of attrition to Texas!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > not according to your hero, Obama
> ...


actually, it was


----------



## elvis (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



if it gets too rough, they could have Trump smackdown eots, I mean rosie again.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Limbaugh isn't estimating anything... HE'S MOVING HIS BUSINESS BEYOND THE MEANS OF NY TO TAX IT...

He has not said one word about what he expects will result in NY as a result of his departure...  And you can bet that if Limbaugh is leaving that there are 10,000 more just like him... people who headquartered their business there for the purposes of convenience, due to the concentration of other resources which support or sustain those businesses; and have simply found that they've had their fill of the NY parasites sucking them dry.

Michigan had a similar mind set and how it's worked there and everywhere else in the world where it's tried is indisputable.  NY is headin south fast in at least two contexts and on several levels.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 1, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



You think he is actually moving away from NY?  When will he be leaving, it's already April.


----------



## jillian (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> You think he is actually moving away from NY?  When will he be leaving, it's already April.



I'm thinking he isn't going anywhere either.

And if he does, hasta la vista, baby...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


hold your breath


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

jillian said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > You think he is actually moving away from NY?  When will he be leaving, it's already April.
> ...


so, davids figured it out that Rush would be paying an additional $190k in taxes
that doesnt include what he is already paying
you dont think that amount of money would put any kind of hurt on the state government?
and if Rush isnt the only one to leave, it could put a HUGE hurt on it


----------



## jillian (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



i can guarantee that rush has a better accountant than one who would end him up paying an extra 190k.

that's what they do when they have more money than g-d.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 1, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



All I can go by is what he said... and his reasoning is sound...  I doubt there's a ton of reason for Rush to remain in NY... his reason for going there was the size of the Market... he had to sustain an audience in NY for a period of time back in 88 as a function of the deal he had with his syndicating partner.

Since Rush's network EIB is now four times larger than the NY Radio market... if NY stations shut him out because of the move, he'd still have the largest audience in Radio and given that any station that cut him out would be the loser in terms of revenue lost, it's highly unlikely that he they would and I can't see any other reason, why he'd stay.

But then I haven't understood why he stayed there as long as he has...  and that's where Rush and I disagree the most... HE likes you people... Rush feels that you idiots are worth the effort to convince you; he actually sees you as human beings...  I do not.

Left-think, OKA: HIV... The Human Intellectual-deficiency Virus, infects those with insufficient intellectual means to reject it base deficiencies.

The simple fact is that if Leftists were capable of reason; if they were in possession of the cognitive means to understand the principles at play, the risks to the culture that leftism represents... they would.  

Perhaps he hopes to convert the fascists...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 1, 2009)

DavidS said:


> I hope Rush Limbaugh dies of AIDS.



I hope you are lucky enough not to recieve what you wish on others.


----------



## DavidS (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Because they know it would cost more money over the long term to move their entire base of operations to another state and hire new workers and officers than accept a .5% tax increase. The rich need to stop bitching and moaning about taxes while they enjoy private jets, helicopters, owning a fleet of yachts, a few buildings and half of the private islands in the carribean.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...


and you need to stop being so fucking jealous of them


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Apr 1, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So what? Out of state, out of country, same shit. I wanna see DATA for this correlation (i.e. migration flows of the richest 1% as related to the top income tax rates), and see whether its true. Would we not expect states with really low tax rates (i.e. Missouri) get MORE millionaires? But that doesn't seem the case. New York City is riddled with taxes, and it's still the financial capital of the universe. There's more rich people there than almost anywhere else. 

Can it fit into your tiny mind that there might be other considerations as to where people decide to settle? I'm sure you might have considered the tax rate when you decided to live where you live now, but was it THE defining factor? Because if that is THE defining factor then I'm sure there's some nice places abroad you should look into. Ah- but then other things come at play, correct? Even within the States, if you had to choose between living in Alaska or Texas, I'm sure there would be many more things that would influence your decision, OTHER than income tax rates; so it's ridiculous to expect the same from other simply because they are richer (Limbaugh is doing this explicitly for ideological reasons, so he can't be taken as an example). The argument you and others are making is that somehow high tax = no business and low tax = all business; but reality isn't zero-sum like that. It's similar to the argument that countries _must_ have low tax rates to foster a "healthy" business environment, but that's simply not the case. Take Denmark, with I think the highest taxes in Europe (>50%), yet simultaneously one of the most globalized [/economically integrated] countries in the world: a huge percentage of its GDP is depended on exports and imports, its industries are transnational in scope, its tightly linked to and dependent on the world economy. Why do firms (and rich people) still settle in places like Denmark (or New York?) because they offer OTHER ADVANTAGES (a highly educated, skilled, and healthy workforce, for example).



GHook93 said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > $500,000??? Wow, that must be what? A deleterious whole 1% of the population of the state?
> ...



Yeah, and so what? Statistically speaking, these 42,000 people are presumably the very top rung of the economic ladder. 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Academic Class Models
> 
> Dennis Gilbert, 2002
> 
> ...



Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I said before, higher taxes don't mean that now all the rich people are going to go. We shouldn't be frightened of that. Its how those taxes are spent that will determine that, though there are many factors at work. I guess the main question is who cares? Who cares? These people aren't getting oppressed. These people aren't going to go hungry. These people run the show. These ARE the politicians. These ARE the people who run the banks. This is Britney Spears and Hollywood. I'm sorry, I just can't shed a tear for them; not when this 1% of the people controls 40% of the income, while the bottom 20% barely receives 1%.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2009)

and ED misses the point again
if you keep RAISING those taxes on a state level to a punitive amount, you WILL drive some of them out of state


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Apr 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> and ED misses the point again
> if you keep RAISING those taxes on a state level to a punitive amount, you WILL drive some of them out of state



Hahahaha... Oh, man. It's so funny. It's seriously like talking to a brick. 

Cheers, DiveCon.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and ED misses the point again
> ...


yeah, you are a fucking brick
you are too fucking stupid to understand it
yeah, some it would be hard for them to move, like Trump, since he has BUILDINGS that he couldnt just move
but those that just live there might consider it


----------



## driveby (Apr 2, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Geithner ?.....


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> ROFLM*N*AO...



What does that 'N' stand for?


----------



## bthoma91 (Apr 2, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.
> ...



Typical leftist argument, filled with no factual argument and no intellect.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2009)

bthoma91 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You just didn't get it.  Rush is fat, both he and GW are drug addicts and alcoholics, and Bush was MIA when he was supposed to be serving with the National Guard.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test  on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list  a year and a half long, by some estimates  and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but after a while his enthusiasm seems to have cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months.

In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test  the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a later piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge  eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly  and it probably will  it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

The Straight Dope: Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?


----------



## editec (Apr 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> and ED misses the point again
> if you keep RAISING those taxes on a state level to a punitive amount, you WILL drive some of them out of state


 
Then all that will happen is the workers will make some OTHER capitalist rich.

The delusion that the extrmely wealthy are irreplaceable can be easily refuted by visiting any graveyard in the world, folks.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

Everyone is replaceable and nobody thinks they aren't. What we can't do without is equal opportunity for any one person to attain wealth.

The rest of the liberal spewing is just that...hateful spewing.


----------



## editec (Apr 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Everyone is replaceable and nobody thinks they aren't. What we can't do without is equal opportunity for any one person to attain wealth.
> 
> The rest of the liberal spewing is just that...hateful spewing.


 
Ya' think?

Read _Atlas Shrugged_ and tell me what the central theme of that philosophical tripe really is, honey.

You continue to prove to me that you are smug, spiteful little know-nothing whose contributions to this community aren't worth a pimple on any of our asses.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

As usual, the lefty asswipe takes his own resume and assigns it to the person he most dislikes.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

BTW, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is that society stagnates when we devalue or punish independent and productive achievers.  

In case you didn't know.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2009)

editec said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone is replaceable and nobody thinks they aren't. What we can't do without is equal opportunity for any one person to attain wealth.
> ...



Allie is a social worker.  Like my cop friends, they think everyone is scum, because they see scum all day everyday.

But in her mind, she thinks this makes her an expert on the subject.  

I think she said that she worked at a newspaper before she became a social worker.  And that makes her an expert on the liberal media.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

See, that's the difference between me and the left, Booboo. I DON'T think they're scum. YOU do. I love the people I work with, and I chose this field and have always worked with the people you refer to as "scum".

And it doesn't take an expert to see the glaring truth about the media.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2009)

editec said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and ED misses the point again
> ...


no, because the people that it will drive out most likely are not running a business there that cant be moved


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> See, that's the difference between me and the left, Booboo. I DON'T think they're scum. YOU do. I love the people I work with, and I chose this field and have always worked with the people you refer to as "scum".
> 
> And it doesn't take an expert to see the glaring truth about the media.



Then why don't you see the truth about the media?  You didn't even read the link I provided.  It explains why you are dead wrong.  But fine, stay clueless.

Also, you look down on the people you work with.  I don't have time to go find the conversations we have had, but I do remember those conversations.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...  where there is no state income tax.
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> ...



Do you plan on turning S. Carolina into the new NYC?  Good luck with that.  

There is a reason you pay more taxes in NY than you do in W. Virginia.

PS.  Here is NY's response to Rush leaving.  Classic:

Joshing Politics: Jon Stewart Tells Rush To Get The F@*& Out Of New York

NY has been trying to get Rush to leave for the longest time.  

Gay pride parades
Raised price of hotdogs
He's in to drugs so we cleaned up time square
Told Indian cabbies to pretend to be middle eastern men
Etc.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Upon hearing of NY state's plan to drmatically increase taxes on Resident's earning over 500,000 per year; Rush vowed to sell his NY holdings and move his operations to Texas...



*The pathological liar is always threatening to leave, but he never does.*

February 13, 2009
RUSH:   I'm looking for property in New Zealand, and I'm going to put my money in Singapore.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 2, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I wanna see DATA for this correlation (i.e. migration flows of the richest 1% as related to the top income tax rates), and see whether its true.



So you want to see data for your own false premise?

As a general rule, where you present a false premise, you need to bring your own data...

Who on this thread has claimed that tax rate is the only consideration for residence amongst the top 1% of income earners?

Now since no one contributing to this thread has made such an assertion, one has to wonder what you sought to accomplish by the pretense that such had.





> Would we not expect states with really low tax rates (i.e. Missouri) get MORE millionaires?



Missouri has a ton of millionaires...  But it's odd, given that you're the one who offers the pinnacle of reason that there are numerous considerations beyond top marginal tax rates... that you'd recognize that there are numerous considerations beyond the taxes...  

For instance... the proximity to a coast line or other sought after recreation... My home town for instance, located on the SW coast of Florida, has one of the highest millionaire counts per acre on earth...  and oddly enough, it also has no income taxes...  Right across the state is Miami Beach...  I've heard rumors that the waterway in and around Miami Beach enjoys more yachts over 100ft than 99% of the planet... and guess what...  NO TAXES ON INCOME.

New York City is the hub of the financial markets... among many others, not the least of which the Entertainment industry, which is how Limbauch landed there in the first place; thus it serves reason that there would be large concentrations of wealthy people...

You want to believe that because they've tolerated high taxation in the past, that they'll tolerate any level of taxation, forever.  

In fact, NY has already suffered large numbers of millionaire flight.  To deny it is absurd.  I make a fairly comfortable living on NY Millionaires that move to my area... and without exception, they've spent a working lifetime, spending as little time in NY as possible and yearning for the day to get out from under the confiscatory taxation of that workers paradise.

Of course, until now there has been an endless stream of people moving to NY to replace them...  because of the opportunity that NY's markets present.  But at some point, the cost of admission simply overwhelms the potential.

They're approaching that point...  and as they promise more and more entitlements to more and more feeble minded morons; they're less able to change their policy in reaction to producer flight. 

Ya see Comrade, as NY grows less able to pay those entitlements, the addleminded masses who have grown dependent upon those freebies grow restless...  and a restless moron is a potentially violent moron and when you have violent morons by the MILLIONS... you got a real problem.

Under leftist governance advancing leftist economic and social policy, NY City is less than a generation from becoming the shithole it was when Gulliani came to town...  a time when NY had barely sustained itself from bankruptcy for over a decade.

LOL...  so go ahead Einstein, promote the unjustiable, immoral confiscation of the product of the labor of effective producers through taxation on every conceivable element of the culture...  and know that when that culture again succumbs to the calamitous effects of that idiocy, that we'll be here to count you amongst those who advocated for it, and are thus responsible to those who you injured through your advocacy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

Britney Spears is going to be on welfare before the end, and then you can feel justified in screwing her over, because then she will qualify as "scum".

You're nauseating. You've admitted repeatedly you have no problem with tyranny, so long as it's the tyranny of communists.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 2, 2009)

editec said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and ED misses the point again
> ...



ROFLMNAO...

'The workers' have never made anyone rich...  The premise is absurd...  If you want to see the wealth production which 'the workers' are capable of producing, take a peek at the Somalia... nothing BUT workers there.  If "the workers' were capable of creating wealth, Somalia wouldn't look like this>>>


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



*Well, to use the same illogic, a dollar bill never lifted a brick. You have to pay a worker to lift the brick.

In reality, it takes BOTH Capital AND Labor working together to produce wealth.The more harmoniously Capital and Labor work together, the more efficient the wealth production. To denigrate either one denigrates both.*


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


*

So what?  Who suggested otherwise?




			In reality, it takes BOTH Capital AND Labor working together to produce wealth.
		
Click to expand...


ROFL... Hey you tell yourself whatever ya need to in order to feel better about your inadequacies.  

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products...  and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2009)

gezztoo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, I wish he'd move his fat ass out of Florida, too. I guess he lives here for the same reason...no state income tax. The man really stinks the place up. Though, he does keep drug dealers in business...and it's just a short hop to those countries he visits with a suitcase full of Viagra. Nah, I guess we are stuck with him.
> ...



Yep, so will everybody else.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


*
i disagree
workers are an asset
especially good workers*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


*

Well, ol' Pubes is producing electiricity again.*


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 2, 2009)

Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing.
Rush Limbaugh



PubliusInfinitum said:


> workers are a liability, not an asset.



*Squeak for yourself. *


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*

An asset, by definition, is something which is valuable in and of itself. Something that can be sold for money.

So no, they aren't an asset. They're a liability, because you have to pay them.*


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 2, 2009)

Which is why when you're applying for assistance, any wages you pay (if you are self employed, or if you have someone to help you because you're unable to care for yourself) are DEDUCTED.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 2, 2009)

alliebaba,

disagree, workers are an asset

you're thinking in terms of white and black, paper.  accounting principles.  but ask many CEO's who take good EE's with them and they will tell you that good EE's are assets, not liabilities, despite what your paper says.  my dad never calls good EE's liabilities, always assets and they are...then again, he has little time for paper, he always sees big picture


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 2, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


*

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.*


----------



## HideTheRum (Apr 3, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*


So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Fuck me. I'm a 'worker' in my field, and I know that my company provides a lot of shit that I would not want to deal with. Just the health insurance benefits and regulations alone are enough to drive a person into the bottom of a bottle. Do the ppl that own and run the company I work for make more money than me? Hell Yes! But I still own a house and do okay, but I'm not jealous of them. They did all the work to get the company going. They took a lot of risks, and still do considering all the frivolous lawsuits that take place today from sissies that are just looking for a free ride from people like them. So therfore, they deserve to make more than me. 

You friggin people need to let go of your jealousy and hatred and grow up.*


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 3, 2009)

HideTheRum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



*Does capital assemble the resources? And workers do invent the products, capital can't invent anything. Like CON$, capital can't think. Capital without Labor produces nothing, and Labor without Capital also produces nothing. Both are essential. Only elitists consider one more important than the other.*


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 3, 2009)

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?


----------



## editec (Apr 3, 2009)

Trying to discuss political and economic theory with people who don't understand poltical and economic theory is pointless.

All one can do is lead these folks to the truth and then expect to be pummeled with insults as they become enraged that they cannot understand it.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not king, he is mocked and if the people get their idiotic way, he is blinded as soon as possible, too.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2009)

HideTheRum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



So you make enough to own a house?  That's great.  That's all we are asking for.

Are you ever going to be able to retire?  

And you do realize your generation is the first generation expected NOT to do as well as your parents did, right?  

When will you wake up and realize that the corporations are unfairly taking from the labor force?  Remember the years when Unions were winning pay increases and pensions for their members?  Those members deserved those raises.  Do you realize that or do you think those workers ripped off the company?  

What if the company you work for took $1 away from your hourly wages?  How about $2?  At what point would you get mad?  What if they cut your wages in half and you saw the CEO of your company got a $1 million dollar raise?  Would that be fine by you?  

Or would you be jealous and hateful?    

And yes, some employees do invent products.  Only at Union companies do those employees reap the rewards.  

PS.  The part about the frivilous lawsuits tells me you are a right winger who swallows everything the GOP says.  When you say frivilous do you mean like Exxon Valdez?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2009)

editec said:


> Trying to discuss political and economic theory with people who don't understand poltical and economic theory is pointless.
> 
> All one can do is lead these folks to the truth and then expect to be pummeled with insults as they become enraged that they cannot understand it.
> 
> In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not king, he is mocked and if the people get their idiotic way, he is blinded as soon as possible, too.


way to show how little you actually know


----------



## Toro (Apr 3, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> *Workers* do not produce wealth, they *produce products*...  and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.



You have got to be kidding.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Apr 3, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?



Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...


----------



## raceright (Apr 3, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble. For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Perhaps a visual representation would be more suitable?
> ...



Should the player on the bench get the same pay as the franchise player,should the rodies be paid the same as the rock stars,should 
Woopies hair dresser be paid the same as Woopie.  Should the chef
at the white house be paid the same as the Pres.  and why not..


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2009)

raceright said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Agnapostate said:
> ...


good points


----------



## mash107 (Apr 3, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> *Workers* do not produce wealth, they *produce products*...  and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.



Production is wealth, PI. That's economics 101. 

But our policies are favoring temporary consumption over production, and as CBO collaborates, we're going to  in a world of hurt if we don't radically change policies.


----------



## ItsFairmont (Apr 3, 2009)

Rush Limbaugh is my hero, ever since he came back from the Dominican Republica (a place known for underage gay prostitution) with half a bottle of Viagra at a time when he wasn't married.

What a great gay.....er....guy.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 3, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


*Seriously? Pubic, is this a common belief held among Republicans?*


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 4, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Cute little cartoon Agna....but it doesn't tell the whole story....how about the guy that slaves and saves enough money to start his own business....a guy who hires other guys who need jobs....a guy who works super hard in order to make more money than just a lowly paycheck....that is the real story of America.....we have the liberty and freedom and opportunity to create our own business and bigger profits....which is the total antithesis of marxist liberal socialist communists who target capitalism because they can't stand real Americans who strive for more out of life.....Americans are winners and anti-capitalists are whiny losers...



Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the nice little anecdotal story any anti-socialist enjoys spewing out. It's a shame that you can't rely on somewhat more _statistical_ evidence to support your claims. Some familiarity with political and economic philosophy would also be welcome, as I am neither a "Marxist" nor a "liberal."



raceright said:


> Should the player on the bench get the same pay as the franchise player,should the rodies be paid the same as the rock stars,should Woopies hair dresser be paid the same as Woopie.  Should the chef at the white house be paid the same as the Pres.  and why not..



I'd say not. I can think of little utility value provided by entertainers that warrants that they be paid obscenely greater amounts than average workers. But if your claims are intended to further a belief that compensation differentiations according to labor input differentiations do not exist in a socialist economy, that's not the case. 



DiveCon said:


> good points



Not really. As mentioned, they're based on the inaccurate belief that compensation differentiations do not exist in a socialist economy.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

AggravatedProstate said:


> The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble.



Without the benefit of having read beyond this first sentence, I find the raw projection from this member that her opposition is ignorant of the subjective science of economics.

Thus I'm lead to believe that I'm about to be treated to a fountain of knowledge born in the factual understanding of the subjective science of economics; from which I may sip to expand my understanding of that subjective science and the FACTS which she PROVES TO BE *TRUTH* from her extensive understanding of same.

Let's examine the balance of the paragraph for those two common elements... that of supposition founded in subjective opinion, hopefully where such is born from a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument and science born on analysis which tested the elements of that supposition and the sound scientific conclusions drawn from that empirical evidence... 





			
				AggravatedProstate said:
			
		

> For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.



Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph...  So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.

"the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."

In this classic demonstration of mindless pap,  we see a projection that Capitalism is a scheme&#8230; it&#8217;s a plan, wherein people have conspired against other people to exploit them&#8230; thus given the specified elements, the Hierarchy is then necessarily scheming to exploit, or to openly exchange an unfair value in terms of compensation for the exchanged value represented by the service provided by Labor.

Would this had NOT been a PERFECT PLACE to note what a FAIR exchange would represent, so as to show that the Hierarchy was IN FACT: Screwing labor?  Yet this member chose to omit this would-be scientific fact.  WHAT&#8230; WHY&#8230; HOW could someone who claims to be in direct possession of such knowledge, leave  us to wallow in our ignorance?  

IS it not true, that where such knowledge is known to this member and where she stands on the certainty implied in her assertion, which can ONLY rest in that knowledge; that in advancing the unambiguous projection that her opposition is IGNORANT, that she is bound be the moral imperative inherent in reason to provide this board with those facts; proving that her opposition was IN FACT ignorant of THOSE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, thus rendering their positions moot; thus proving her conclusion?

We&#8217;re left to conclude here, that this member believes that the entire scope of the calculation of economics is comprised in the exchange of the value of compensation for the service provided by Labor.  That Capitalism fails on the inability of CAPITALISM to provide the *scientifically certain formula* wherein Labor receives the *SCIENTIFICALLY correct compensation* for their exchanged service.

Well DAMN!  If that&#8217;s true&#8230; then WHERE IS THIS CALCULATION?  Could this entire issue have not be put to rest RIGHT THERE?  Is it not true, that HAD the member simply stated that Capitalism is untenable because the entity of Capitalism is simply incapable of paying the correct scientifically established wage for labor and simply posted the scientifically correct formula proving that Capitalism is simply WRONG in the means by which IT calculates the exchange, that this argument would be OVER?  I mean who could argue against hard Scientific FACT?

Of course to do that, she would been obliged to identify WHO Capitalism is&#8230; to specify the identity of this ethereal being; so that we, the Ignorant, could in the future avoid advocating for and exchanging with this boogyman intent on exploiting our ignorance, in their conspiracy to profit from our service of labor?  But if she did THAT&#8230;such would lead to what?
.
.
.
.
.
Would that not lead directly to the member having to acknowledge the unspeakable?  
.
.
.
.
.
.

Would this not require that she recognize the Capitalism is not a WHO&#8230; that Capitalism is not a being who is incapable of exchanging the scientifically correct value for the services provided by labor?   Would she not then be left with no other alternative but to admit that capitalism is merely the word used to describe the actions of BILLIONS OF human beings engaging in the process of freely exchanging the value which they possess, for the value which another possesses, which they need or desire, throughout the course of their daily lives?  And that because of the unspeakable number of variables which exist in an economy of billions of human beings, that there is no &#8216;Scientifically Correct&#8217; value which can POSSIBLY BE ASSIGNED for the exchange of labor&#8230; because the CORRECT VALUE for one&#8217;s labor is that value which one is prepared to accept, given the circumstances with which they&#8217;re presently faced?  

Thus the supposition which ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A &#8216;SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT&#8217; VALUE TO BE SET FOR EXCHANGED LABOR IS FALSE, is it not?

And wouldn&#8217;t this be the result of the established, now indisputable certainty, that Socialism, OKA: *Left-think* ONLY PRETENDS to know what this Scientifically Correct value is, while themselves BEING ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT OF ANYTHING OF THE KIND; thus proving their OVERT INTENTION TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IN THIS CASE, WE, THE MEMBER&#8217;S OF THIS BOARD, SPECIFICALLY?  

And would it not then be true that where we readily know that an advocate is promoting DECEITFUL IGNORANCE; that where it has been established that they&#8217;re sole purpose is to prey upon the emotional needs of others, who simply have not thought this issue through;  that for us to lend their INVALID, DECEITFUL THESIS credence would and could ONLY lead to cultural CATASTROPHE?   

To set them up in power; to allow them to establish policy which strips from us; the free individuals of this culture; EACH ONE OF US FULLY UNDERSTANDING OUR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES; EACH ONE BEING VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED TO KNOW THE *CORRECT VALUE* FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL SERVICES AND THE GOODS *WE EXCHANGE*, BASED UPON THOSE *INDIVIDUAL* CIRCUMSTANCES, to meet the needs for which those circumstances provide; sets aside the INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY THAT WE MORE ACCURATELY KNOW THAT WHICH IS A &#8216;SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT&#8217; VALUE FOR OUR SERVICES AND GOODS?  And this better THAN ANYONE ELSE&#8230; possibly could&#8230;  

It is OUR RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF OUR LABOR&#8230; IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THAT RIGHT; and to defend it from those who seek to strip us from that right, because of their feelings that we&#8217;re unable to determine what is fair FOR US; and who use LIES born of SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE&#8230; meaning SCIENCE WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE&#8230;  but that which is used TO IMPLY THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE WITHOUT HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THE HARD WORK ON WHICH THAT CREDIBILITY OTHERWISE RESTS.  It merely project the COLOR if Science; the façade which they drape over their deceit to LABEL IT SCIENCE.

They&#8217;re liars folks&#8230; at BEST their enthusiastically MISGUIDED FOOLS advocating for that which deceives&#8230; but the end result is that, that for which they advocate serves to MISLEAD; but where such fools are shown the truth, and the above represents NOTHING LESS THAN THE TRUTH&#8230; INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT&#8230; and they continue to zealously perpetuate deception&#8230;  THEY CAN NO LONGER ESCAPE THE CERTIANT THAT THEY ARE WILLFUL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE&#8230; which is the underlying purpose of the full scope of the ideological left&#8230;

Now, I leave you to enjoy the various submissions by the deceivers, which will respond with what stands for high intellect on the left; the predictable cries that this argument is &#8216;too long,&#8217; through the ad populum grope wherein they declare that &#8220;no one will read it&#8217;&#8230; or the more likely simple dismissal of the argument on the same, if unstated, fallacious premise; simply reiterating the now discredited projection, in hopes that to do so will somehow establish some discernable validity.

And it is THAT, fellow members of the board, which measures the scope of that which is the sub-par intellect of The Advocates of Social Science; those which would have us believe that THEY&#8217;RE HERE TO &#8216;lead us from the cultural darkness;&#8217;  even while they busy themselves with turning out the intellectual lights&#8230; through their INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT BROUGHT BY THEIR OPPOSITION.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 4, 2009)

Do you realize precisely *how great* an idiot you are?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Apr 4, 2009)

DavidS said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Are you talking?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

AggravatedProstate said:
			
		

> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph...  So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.
> 
> "the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."
> 
> ...






Agnapostate said:


> Do you realize precisely *how great* an idiot you are?




And THAT Friends is what we CALL advancing suppositional thesis, testing that thesis through application of it's principles; observing and noting the results... from which we're each left to draw our own conclusions... from those empirical observations.

Now I could easily conclude that I've proven my argument; and this through the help of Ag whatshername... and to be perfectly honest... I do.

But I leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions from the above experiment and for the brighter amongst you, I ask that you set your conclusions in writing, on this thread, so that we may each enjoy the bounty of your reasoning, to firm this whole thing up...

LOL...   Well done Ag... 

You, along with your Comrades, are truly... That SPECIAL Gift, that just keeps on giving.  

(And kids... these are the idiots which are presently running our government.  I'd say this kid is probably smarter than MOST of those in the Hussein Cabinet.. and lacks the intellectual means present in a Bag of GRASS.)


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Apr 4, 2009)

Agnapostate said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the nice little anecdotal story any anti-socialist enjoys spewing out. It's a shame that you can't rely on somewhat more statistical evidence to support your claims. Some familiarity with political and economic philosophy would also be welcome, as I am neither a "Marxist" nor a "liberal."



Sure thing....how about taking a look at European unemployment rates versus USA unemployment rates...

US unemployment rates have been pretty much from 3-5% on average with a few upswings.  Our 8% today is very, very high for us.  European rates, however, have hovered for years around the 7-8% range or even higher.

Capitalism, rather than socialism, certainly seems to work better for the WORKERS....dontcha think?

FACTS:   Euro Area Unemployment Rate 

FACTS:  The United States Unemployment Rate


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, I do not think that the figures are correct. Our unemployment rate only includes those on unemployment, not the people whose benefits have ran out, not the high school and college grads looking for work. The real number is much higher for the US. Not only that, many millions here are now working part time. Only 20 to 32 hours a week. Yet they are counted as employed.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Apr 4, 2009)

the same logic goes for Europe as well...and part time workers are employed aren't they?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > *Workers* do not produce wealth, they *produce products*...  and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.
> ...



Labor is a liability... that's not even debatable Dr. Dumbass.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

AggravatedProstate said:
			
		

> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				PubliusInfinitum said:
			
		

> Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph...  So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.
> 
> "the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."
> 
> ...






Agnapostate said:


> Do you realize precisely *how great* an idiot you are?




And THAT Friends is what we CALL advancing suppositional thesis, testing that thesis through application of it's principles; observing and noting the results... from which we're each left to draw our own conclusions... from those empirical observations.

Now I could easily conclude that I've proven my argument; and this through the help of Ag whatshername... and to be perfectly honest... I do.

But I leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions from the above experiment and for the brighter amongst you, I ask that you set your conclusions in writing, on this thread, so that we may each enjoy the bounty of your reasoning, to firm this whole thing up...

LOL...   Well done Ag... 

You, along with your Comrades, are truly... That SPECIAL Gift, that just keeps on giving.  

(And kids... these are the idiots which are presently running our government.  I'd say this kid is probably smarter than MOST of those in the Hussein Cabinet.. and lacks the intellectual means present in a Bag of GRASS.)

It's a ROUTE!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 4, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


actually, it is VERY debatable
labor can be both an asset and a liability
if you have good workers, they are an asset
poor workers do become a liability


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




Not on a balance sheet...  Labor is nothing but a liability.    

Now why is that, Dive?

It is because the certainty of labor is what labor will cost; it's value in terms of production is not known until after the costs have been realized; what's more labor is not accountable for production, in terms of demands upon production... and so on.

Labor is paid FIRST, before other costs associated with production are paid, thus labor does participate in the risk... thus labor is a liability.

As I said, it's not debatable.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 4, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


without the labor, there is no product, without the product, there is no profit


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2009)

LOL, more wattage from ol' Pubes.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 4, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated...  absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

I've not said anything which should have lead anyone to believe that labor is not necessary and useful... I've said that Labor is a Liability... not an asset and that such is hardly a viable point of debate.

A fact, which those workers which have changed from labor to ownership are intimately familiar.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



*That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.*


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 5, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff?  Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses...  Is that you Mr. Keynes?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...


thus confirming ed is a fucking idiot
if you hae no INCOME there is no taxes to write off


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



*No, from their other PROFITS, of course! Well, I guess if the business NEVER makes any money then it would be ENTIRELY risky, LOL, that is mainly for the CREDITORS not ownership. Ownership should have been pulling personal income out of the business all along which, once removed, is protected from creditors by incorporation, so it's the creditors taking most of the risk. The workers risk investing time in the company only to find years later they have to start over from the bottom in a new company, except the limited work years of life they invested can't be replaced like ownership's dollars can. There is no way ownership assumes the risk in its entirety. That's just their overinflated egos talking.*


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 5, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Ahh, the other profits... because there MUST Be profits... right?  That's the rule.



> Well, I guess if the business NEVER makes any money then it would be ENTIRELY risky, LOL, that is mainly for the CREDITORS not ownership.



Sure... It's the creditors, because they just gave up their money and products with no security... 

LOL can you really, be this ignorant? 



> Ownership should have been pulling personal income out of the business all along which, once removed, is protected from creditors by incorporation, so it's the creditors taking most of the risk.



"Should have...' LOL... And THIS is why people like you should not be allowed within 10 milles of a polling precinct...  

There is NO END to that which you do not know and no understanding by you, that you do not know...  

So you go about voting to elect idiots, not unlike yourself who undermine the means of people who have their entire lives on the line, everyday... everything they have is in the game... and they pay their workers BEFORE they get PAID, often with MONEY THEY BORROWED... 

People who are still working when their workers have been home, fed and are long since in bed...  

Spare us this ignorant drivel...  You've clearly never even KNOWN anyone that operates a business, so you've no means to speak to it.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



*Nothing but ad hominem and projection in that rant.

Now just think for a moment, we have two scenarios; ownership is paying their employees with BORROWED money, which would then SHARE some of the risk with ownership's creditors. And if the owner is not borrowing and the business is profitable he is paying himself a salary even if he's reinvesting the profits. So the house that he bought with his salary can't be touched by his creditors if the business suddenly goes south. So a smart owner uses every technique to minimize his own risk and maximize everyone else's. So no good businessman assumes the risk in its "entirety." Case closed.*


----------



## HideTheRum (Apr 9, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> HideTheRum said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You are correct, labor and capital are both essential. I wasn't disputing that.
But are you really saying they should be compensated equally?  
Please expand as to how somebody who provides me a job and compensates me to perform tasks, whether they be physical or mental, should make the same as me.


----------



## HideTheRum (Apr 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> HideTheRum said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



My generation? Maybe I forgot a post somewhere, but how do you know how old I am?

And yes, when I sell my house like most people do, that will help with my retirement, along with my 201k


I don't work for a large corporation, and probably wouldn't want to. I've had lunch and dinner with my employers a few times, and that does not happen much with large companies. I think they are good people (three co-owners) and want their business to succeed. Could the CFO cook the books and burn all of us? Yes, but after many conversations with him, including ones at his house and at the bar, I peg him as a straight shooter that has honor and would not do that sort of thing.

And yes, I lean to the right  (which you could figure out from my signature) but I don't swallow everything the GOP says. But please, by all means, continue to lump my in to whatever category you fell comfortable with.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Apr 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> So you make enough to own a house?  That's great.  That's all we are asking for.



Who's stopping you?  The answer is: NO ONE is stopping you.  Yet you need to imply that someone is stopping you, to rationalize around your inadequacies... to prevent you from taking responsibility for YOURSELF!



> Are you ever going to be able to retire?



ROFL... As if SOMEONE HAS PREVENTED YOU FROM PLANNING A RETIREMENT FUND and bearing the RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO REALIZE IT.



> And you do realize your generation is the first generation expected NOT to do as well as your parents did, right?



Golly... and whose fault is THAT?  Some unstated vague reference which prevented 'them' from doing as well as their parents did?




> When will you wake up and realize that the corporations are unfairly taking from the labor force?



ROFLMNAO...  What a load...  Where are these people who are being forced to labor for unfair compensation?  BE SPECIFIC!  You've implied your CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT SUCH IS THE CASE: WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC CASES?

Your failure to post SPECIFICS, will result (and its a 100% certianty that you'll fail, it's what losers DO...) in your concession to my point, that you're an imbecile, seeking to impart DECEIT designed to misform this board.




> Remember the years when Unions were winning pay increases and pensions for their members?  Those members deserved those raises.  Do you realize that or do you think those workers ripped off the company?



Yes, those heady days where Collective bargaining sucked the means of the US Steel and Textile industries to compete; thus destroying those industries; as the same menace is destorying the US Auto industry.



> What if the company you work for took $1 away from your hourly wages?  How about $2?



What about it?  If I felt that reduction was warranted and necessary, I'd agree to it... as I have many times... just as I've asked that the company I work for increase my compensation where such is warranted and necessary...  and where was NOT warranted and necessary, and I didn't agree with it, I would part company, as I have many times and find another company which would compensate me at what I consider to be fair value.



> At what point would you get mad?  What if they cut your wages in half and you saw the CEO of your company got a $1 million dollar raise?  Would that be fine by you?   Or would you be jealous and hateful?



ROFL... How old are you sis?  Your argument is constructed upon the cognitive measure of a 14 year old; and a nonetobright 14 yr old at that.




> And yes, some employees do invent products.  Only at Union companies do those employees reap the rewards.



False... Union contracts, as private contracts MAY or more likely MAY NOT provide a share to the employee for proceeds resultant from research which THE COMPANY FUNDED, in facilaties THEY BUILT... with equipment THEY PROVIDED.

As the owner of several companies, I'd never submit such consideration... as to do so would be ABSURD!  I'm paying the individual to do the reaserch FOR ME... 

Now if the individual wants to FUND HIS OWN RESEARCH, USING HIS OWN FACILITIES AND HIS OWN EQUIPMENT... GREAT!  More power to ya... and if the invention is such that it will profit me to buy it from them... then THEY will reap the rewards of the RISK WHICH THEY ENDURED...

ROFL... Leftists...


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> ROFL... How old are you sis?  Your argument is constructed upon the cognitive measure of a 14 year old; and a nonetobright 14 yr old at that.



August 7, 2008
RUSH:   Elitism is a nose in-the-air attitude that says I'm better than everybody else, I'm smarter than everybody else


----------

