Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

...when has a 'stimulus' historically worked on a recession ... ?

During the 1930's

I guess this means that you will have to give back your GED.

Check this out: ...In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %....

Essentially, you've just tried to tell someone who was in Chicago on Wednesday, flew to LA on Thursday, then returned to Chicago on Friday that, because she was in Chicago on Wednesday and also there Friday, she never went anywhere else.

The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Obviously, a rate of 17% a few years later represents a reduction in the unemployment rate when compared properly to the rate the year FDR took office.
Next time, try to post about some subject you actually know something about.

I don't need to comment on that line, now, do I?

I knew this would happen once they stopped teaching logic.

 

[tathagata]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

Of course your attempted point is not supported by your quote. If a Black Woman's wages go from $1.00 to $1.79, her increase in wages is a whopping 79%. Whooppee! If a White male's incomes rises from $1,000,000.00 to $1,090,000.00 his gain in income is only 9%. Poor disadvantaged white male! How come nobody loves him. Boo hoo - better give him another 8 figure bonus so he doesn't go home sad and mournful.

Without specific figures you are merely blowing very smelly smoke out of your sphincter. Kudos to the WSJ for helping you in your self-deception! You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

Of course your attempted point is not supported by your quote. If a Black Woman's wages go from $1.00 to $1.79, her increase in wages is a whopping 79%. Whooppee! If a White male's incomes rises from $1,000,000.00 to $1,090,000.00 his gain in income is only 9%. Poor disadvantaged white male! How come nobody loves him. Boo hoo - better give him another 8 figure bonus so he doesn't go home sad and mournful.

Without specific figures you are merely blowing very smelly smoke out of your sphincter. Kudos to the WSJ for helping you in your self-deception! You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here.

Ah, among many weaknesses, you have exposed the inability to separate mathematics from politics.

Certainly the post proves my point, as indicated by the anger you evince.

As a Conservative, I believe that data should inform policy. As a liberal you need instant gratification, and results.

Imagine what you would say if the data showed the opposite case, as a drop in the income of the indicated groups.

Let's try a tutorial:
Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society. Liberals like nothing better than making the good the enemy of the perfect. And, of course, you are a case in point.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century. And while mouthing the demand for equality for the poor among us, you liberals eschew charity, and, while earning more than Conservatives, give far less to the poor.

The article in question shows data that proves that the system works.

And your "You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here" is a transparent escape-clause so that you can skulk away, tail between you legs, when you read this post.

Wise up.

 

[Agnapostate]

Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result.

I usually grow irritated by the mendacious depiction of socialism as an "equality of outcome" economic system...to apply such a label to a form of liberal democratic capitalism that doesn't even muster Rhine capitalism, for instance, is simply another level of inaccuracy altogether...

 

[DiveCon]

Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result.

I usually grow irritated by the mendacious depiction of socialism as an "equality of outcome" economic system...to apply such a label to a form of liberal democratic capitalism that doesn't even muster Rhine capitalism, for instance, is simply another level of inaccuracy altogether...

you have every bit of oppotunity to advance as anyone else
what more do you want?
do you think a dishwasher should be paid the same as an executive chef?

 

[AllieBaba]

. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study


THAT speaks volumes.

Lol. Berkeley.

No commie agenda there, I'm sure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result.

I usually grow irritated by the mendacious depiction of socialism as an "equality of outcome" economic system...to apply such a label to a form of liberal democratic capitalism that doesn't even muster Rhine capitalism, for instance, is simply another level of inaccuracy altogether...

Why would I care if a pompous blow-hard is "irritated"?

 

[Agnapostate]

you have every bit of oppotunity to advance as anyone else

That is not an accurate statement. See Krugman's The Death of Horatio Alger or Hutton's The World We're In for elaboration on the entrenched nature of restrictions on social mobility.

what more do you want?
do you think a dishwasher should be paid the same as an executive chef?

Just as with the fallacious belief that a socialist economy involves equality of outcome, the belief that it involves abolition of compensation differentials is similarly inaccurate.

Why would I care if a pompous blow-hard is "irritated"?

Having trouble at home with hubby?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would I care if a pompous blow-hard is "irritated"?

Having trouble at home with hubby?

When one sentence follows another it usually indicates some connection.

Obviously not in your case.

Would I be correct in reasoning that it indicates that your feelings were injured, and that it was some feeble attempt to "hit back"?

Didn't work.

 

[Agnapostate]

When one sentence follows another it usually indicates some connection.

Obviously not in your case.

Would I be correct in reasoning that it indicates that your feelings were injured, and that it was some feeble attempt to "hit back"?

Didn't work.

Verily, my heart lies in tatters at the floor...yet not as a result of any intention of yours; it's just the vast and obscene economic ignorance of anti-socialists that tends to do it.

 

[editec]

When one sentence follows another it usually indicates some connection.

Obviously not in your case.

Would I be correct in reasoning that it indicates that your feelings were injured, and that it was some feeble attempt to "hit back"?

Didn't work.

Verily, my heart lies in tatters at the floor...yet not as a result of any intention of yours; it's just the vast and obscene economic ignorance of anti-socialists that tends to do it.

Be prepared for a liftime of disappointment then, amigo.

When one encounters the ignornant who CHOOSE ignorance over information, the best thing one can do is simply accept them for what they are.

They are NOT interested in what socialism really is because they're having too much fund accusing socialism of being responsible for everything they dislike about being members of a civil society.

Thier circular logic is impenetrable as ciccular logic typically is.

 

[DiveCon]

When one sentence follows another it usually indicates some connection.

Obviously not in your case.

Would I be correct in reasoning that it indicates that your feelings were injured, and that it was some feeble attempt to "hit back"?

Didn't work.

Verily, my heart lies in tatters at the floor...yet not as a result of any intention of yours; it's just the vast and obscene economic ignorance of anti-socialists that tends to do it.

well, guess you will have to move to Venezuela as soon as you can

 

[Agnapostate]

well, guess you will have to move to Venezuela as soon as you can

It illustrates the extensive ignorance of the anti-socialist when one suggests that an anarchist would be wholly supportive of socialism as applied through state control. Regardless, your comment is not so bad as had you suggested that I move to Cuba, for instance, since Venezuela, with its incorporation of Bolivarian socialism, is significantly more democratic and participatory than the Marxist-Leninist state of Cuba.

 

[DiveCon]

well, guess you will have to move to Venezuela as soon as you can

It illustrates the extensive ignorance of the anti-socialist when one suggests that an anarchist would be wholly supportive of socialism as applied through state control. Regardless, your comment is not so bad as had you suggested that I move to Cuba, for instance, since Venezuela, with its incorporation of Bolivarian socialism, is significantly more democratic and participatory than the Marxist-Leninist state of Cuba.

which is why i didnt say move to Cuba

 

[Agnapostate]

which is why i didnt say move to Cuba

I doubt you appreciated the difference until I pointed it out. It's likely only by chance that you didn't advise that I move to Sweden.

 

[DiveCon]

which is why i didnt say move to Cuba

I doubt you appreciated the difference until I pointed it out. It's likely only by chance that you didn't advise that I move to Sweden.

just because YOU are fucking ignorant, dont assume everyone else is
and why would i want you to go to sweden, thats Chris/kirks favorite place
LOL

 

[Agnapostate]

just because YOU are fucking ignorant, dont assume everyone else is and why would i want you to go to sweden, thats Chris/kirks favorite place
LOL

That's heavily amusing, but isn't a very good disguise for your vast economic ignorance.

 

[DiveCon]

just because YOU are fucking ignorant, dont assume everyone else is and why would i want you to go to sweden, thats Chris/kirks favorite place
LOL

That's heavily amusing, but isn't a very good disguise for your vast economic ignorance.

spoken like a true idiot

 

[Agnapostate]

spoken like a true idiot

Moron, you expose your vast economic ignorance for us every day...do you really want to pretend otherwise?

 

[edthecynic]

The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?[/url]

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

And how would this rate change if we made taxes more "equitible"? The rich instead of supporting a fire dept. or police dept. for all ... would instead have private guards and armies surrounding their estates to protect themselves from the unwashed masses with private hospitals,schools and their own malls. They would still be spending as much ... but you would not get any benefit ... you would be left to your own devices.

I don't know which of us is more at blame for the misunderstanding, but I'll take the blame and try to articulate better: I didn't make any claim that there should be a more "equitable" tax rate.

That is not the point of my post.

The question I posed is "what is fair?" As a conservative, I believe that data should inform policy, so I have tried to provide accurate data. The rich pay a higher % of taxes than they make as earned income. And the per centage actually increased as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Well, you failed miserably! CON$ervative "data" is always deliberately deceptive. Earned income does not include unrealized capital gains so the income of the wealthy is deliberately underestimated. Also your data doesn't include regressive taxes like payroll taxes so the tax burden of the wealthy is deliberately overestimated. Wage earners do pay a greater % of their income than they earn as wages, but the "rich" don't earn the bulk of their their income as wages, so the "rich" don't pay a higher % of taxes than the wealth they accumulate each year. Get it???

The top 50% of income earners pay almost all of the taxes.

But the top 50% of wage earners are not the top 50% of capital wealth. The top 50% of wealth pay almost no taxes of any kind, income, payroll, inheritance, etc.
Is it fair that the people who benefit the most from the government protecting their right to private ownership of capital assets pay the least for that protection???