Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sure you're an expert on losing.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed? You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
Your point is ... pointless ...
Hope you get that point REAL soon
LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit, a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well. I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible
We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed? You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
Your point is ... pointless ...
Hope you get that point REAL soon
Liberals are not offensive. It is the left wing fanatic which is offensive. Liberals did all of the things you asserted they did, while the left wing fanatics screamed for more. There is nothing to be ashamed about to be liberal. But left wing fanatics like you are totally full or rat poop.
Chomsky started out a poor man. His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range. Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence ODonnell Jr.
I'm sure you're an expert on losing.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
Hope you get that point REAL soon
LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
What you don't understand was, wartime mobilization and the change in the character of the work force, savings during rationing and for soldiers on active duty caused the prosperity in spite of the high taxes. It has been pointed out on this thread several times that the president who caused the highest drop in taxes on the top bracket as was the most effective supply side economics president was JOHN F. KENNEDY, who cut the top bracket from 91% to 70%, cut corporate taxes while only cutting the bottom brackets by 6%. Also, consumer demand is 70% of the economy, and that includes mostly consumption by the middle class and the rest of the top 3 quintiles of income. You are obviously not much on understanding economics.From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure, and the high wages created consumer demand.
Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, and 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
70% of our economy is consumer demand, so too much money in too few hands is starving our economy of demand. We need to raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
Not from where I sit. You are as brain dead as Chris and Jason.I'm sure you're an expert on losing.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
Hope you get that point REAL soon
LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.Your link:
"William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.'
"In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"
Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.
Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?
You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
"Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
.
Chomsky started out a poor man. His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range. Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.
You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.Your link:
"William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.'
"In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"
Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.
Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?
You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
"Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
.
Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have worked for a university, for a major non-profit, a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed? You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
Your point is ... pointless ...
Hope you get that point REAL soon
I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.[/B]
You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
"Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
.
Excuse me ding dong,
what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
.
Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have worked for a university, for a major non-profit, a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
Hope you get that point REAL soon
I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
Excuse me ding dong,
what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
.
The rich are not your friend, Amigo
Socks waste all our time.Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have worked for a university, for a major non-profit, a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.
I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
Only a fool would post hard personal info here, GP, and you've been at this long enough to know your ridiculous demands for proof in such situations are only surpassed in silliness by your unceasing whining about how unfair life in America has treated you.
Would you like some cheese and music with your whine?
We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
Excuse me ding dong,
what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
.
If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living.Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.The rich are not your friend, Amigo
There's a huge corporate safety net in the land of "rugged individualism" that we've all seen recently. Banks gambled with impunity, and government intervened to make the biggest banks even bigger while millions of workers lost their homes, jobs, families or all of the above. It seems to me government has been rewriting the rules of the market economy since before the Gipper moved into the White House to roll back the New Deal, and our current levels of inequality make it appear they have largely succeeded. Today it seems both parties depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements so I don't know how we change anything by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here's the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the "The Public Good" is seen as "Socialism" (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won't bribe Washington in order to increase it's profit margin. We don't need to worry about "The Public Good", individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex.
But the world doesn't work that way. Selfishness harms society....tears it apart....destroys the world economy....spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.....tears a hole in the ozone...creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...melts the North Polar ice cap.....creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy....
But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.
Emmanuel Saez! He was the nut who teamed up with Diamond to try to convince the world that the LAW OF MARGINAL UTILITY shows that when dealing with money, just as with goods and services, marginal utility always diminishes. What a pair of idiots. They try to use that garbage as a proof of why the rich should be taxed more. The fact is, WE DON'T NEED A REASON TO TAX THE RICH MORE, as they get more value from our infrastructure and thus SHOULD PAY MORE.Socks waste all our time.Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only a fool would post hard personal info here, GP, and you've been at this long enough to know your ridiculous demands for proof in such situations are only surpassed in silliness by your unceasing whining about how unfair life in America has treated you.
Would you like some cheese and music with your whine?
I'm not whining about anything when I point out why and by how much economic inequality has grown in the US over the last forty years:
"From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[43][dubious – discuss]
"The share of total income in America going to the top 1% of American households (also after federal taxes and income transfers) increased from 11.3% in 1979 to 20.9% in 2007.[44]
"A 2013 study by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez et al., notes that the rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1%, which has more than doubled since 1976, has had a significant effect on overall income inequality. It states: 'It is tempting to dismiss the study of this group as a passing political fad due to the slogans of the Occupy movement or as the academic equivalent of reality TV. But the magnitudes are truly substantial.'[45]
"Also in 2013, the Economic Policy Institute noted that even though corporate profits are at historic highs, the wage and benefit growth of the vast majority has stagnated.
"The fruits of overall growth have accrued disproportionately to the top 1%."
At the very least, all of us us who are NOT posting for purposes of deception would be well-advised to speculate upon what consequences another five decades of income and wealth inequality will have on our civil rights and our republic.
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.Excuse me ding dong,
what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
.
If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living. Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.The rich are not your friend, Amigo
No, the fed must go. They were created , and are populated , by left wing extremists.
.
Considering that the government's monetary and fiscal policies caused the public to lose value in real estate, and also caused the investment banks to lose billions of $$$$ it was the government's responsibility to bail it out.There's a huge corporate safety net in the land of "rugged individualism" that we've all seen recently. Banks gambled with impunity, and government intervened to make the biggest banks even bigger while millions of workers lost their homes, jobs, families or all of the above. It seems to me government has been rewriting the rules of the market economy since before the Gipper moved into the White House to roll back the New Deal, and our current levels of inequality make it appear they have largely succeeded. Today it seems both parties depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements so I don't know how we change anything by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here's the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the "The Public Good" is seen as "Socialism" (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won't bribe Washington in order to increase it's profit margin. We don't need to worry about "The Public Good", individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex.
But the world doesn't work that way. Selfishness harms society....tears it apart....destroys the world economy....spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.....tears a hole in the ozone...creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...melts the North Polar ice cap.....creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy....
But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.
