Democrats and Republicans are one

[AmazonTania]

Well, if you notice I said, "if you're not a Republican, you're expressing their feelings". Also, I hate to make you aware of it, but it isn't just about you.

Then why discuss me and the 'feelings' I share with Republican?

And how exactly is the government doing that? As long as Republicans continue defunding education, we will always have some people in the low paying jobs, they are in a rut and most will never get out of it.

More and more money is being funneled to education than ever before. As long as Government keeps devaluing the worth of a high school diploma, everyone will have these low paying jobs. As long as the economy is creating more of these jobs, everyone will have these types of jobs.

And you are delusional if you think it is "lucrative" to be on unemployment or disability. Geez, for not being Republican, your conservative rhetoric sure is thick.

The average disability recipient earns $13,000 while the average minimum wage worker earns $14,000. Maybe $1,000 is a lot of money to you, but it hardly make a difference to me or any of the 14 million on disability. Especially since only 1% of those who were on disability since 2008 have returned to the labour force since 2011.

Sounds pretty lucrative to me. Getting paid for not working, paying no taxes and having more disposable income. If the Government is going to offer me a sweet deal to have all of these things and not work, I would do it.

Links? Don't really know what you are talking about.

Links for what? It's called a 'mis-allocation of resources.' The government is distorting the market and keeping people in the wrong areas of the economy. It's doing this by keeping interests rates low and stimulating the economy. The moment this stops, all of jobs which has been created in the recovery will be lost instantly. And these people which obtained jobs due to false market signals will have to find new jobs.

You claim you don't but your type of mentality (conservative) suggests that. And I am on topic, the topic being that Democrats and Repubicans are one, and that fact alone suggests we are not.

In name only. Policies suggest otherwise.

Not sure how your mumbo jumbo fits in. If we reduce our police force (more people out of jobs) and less police to catch criminals, our property insurance goes up, also, crime goes up and that affects most of us.

There is plenty of crime in places where the police force is higher. Typically in larger metropolitan areas with a population of 250,000 or more. Police can't prevent most or even the majority of the crime. Free individuals are better equipped to protect themselves and have a greater incentive to do so.

Since when is the government responsible for motivating people to help each other? Sounds like you are really not making much sense. Churches still provide help to underprivileged families, but there are so many, the churches are not equipped to handle all the need.

Since when is it the Government's responsibility to do for people what they can do for themselves?

Oh I don't know about it not being accurate. It was published by Forbes, a mostly right-leaning source. As for Eisenhower being democrat, you are trying to be facetious, but did you know that the wealthy were paying the highest rate in taxes ever? That sure as hell doesn't fit in with the Republican agenda, so in a sense, Eisenhower was behaving like a Democrat.

What if I told you that only 352 people paid taxes at the highest marginal rate (91%) in 1954? Narrative destroying, I know. Virtually, no one paid taxes at those high rates during the 50's. Sounds like a nice tax code to go back to if you ask me.

Correct, and we have good economies and bad economies, all the while people are doing the same thing as you suggest, but something sure is different, otherwise the economy would always be the same.

Nothing is different. People still do what is in their own separate interests. The only difference is the type of economy they are forced to pursue their own interests in. The economy is typically less economically free. Business activity is hindered, saving is discouraged, investing is squandered and risk taking is looked down upon. Everyone has decided that sacrifice for the good of the collective is what is necessary. And who does that help? No one.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall he moved right.
When Obama refused to prosecute Wall Street for their role in the Great Recession, he moved right.
When Obama refused to back a public option in his health care "reform", he moved right.
I've often heard conservatives claim a leftward drift over the past two generations, but I've never seen an example of it.

ahoy GeorgePhillip,

i think thats a fair and reasonable observation, me hearty.

really, when ye climb up into the crows nest and peer thru the lookin' glass, the entire Democratic Party and its leadership hath shifted slowly, inexorably, to the right o'er the last 40 years.

thar be no liberals, at least none that push legislation and the national dialogue to the left. what ye have be folks like Mr. Obama, who essentially be moderate conservatives, just like Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan.

the government itself is more conservative, farrrRrRrRRRRrrr more so than in 1973, all branches 'o government. just look at the courts, me friend.

fer example, how would this SCOTUS have ruled on Roe vs Wade?

in the landmark 1973 case 'o Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education, the SCOTUS basically upheld busing...how would the justices 'o today rule on that one?

in 1972 the highest court in the land relaxed hurdles to votin' (by alot, in me own eyes) in the Dunn v. Blumstein, somethin' i have a hard time seein' this SCOTUS doin'.

in 1969 California became the first state to adopt the "no fault" divorce law, a triumph by Mr. Reagan that vastly liberated folks to divorce away at a never before seen clip. again, its hard to see a conservative politician championin' this sorta thing in 2013.

1972 also saw the Equal Rights Amendment get passed, and its very hard to imagine a legislative push fer that sorta thing in 2013 - an era whar elected officials muse openly 'bout a woman's physiological ability to resist gettin' pregnant durin' a "legitimate" rape.

i see the huge majority 'o Democrats bein' moderate conservatives, just like most Republicans are.

*nod nod*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[MeadHallPirate]

The government is distorting the market and keeping people in the wrong areas of the economy. It's doing this by keeping interests rates low and stimulating the economy. The moment this stops, all of jobs which has been created in the recovery will be lost instantly. And these people which obtained jobs due to false market signals will have to find new jobs.

ahoy AmazonTania,

hail matey, and well met.

no disagreement in what ye said thar, matey...but whats to be done? what would happen to Mississippi...or Arkansas...or Alabama....or Alaska, if the Federal spigot was to be keelhauled and shut off?

government no doubt be distortin' the market - if they just got outta medicaid, folks would no doubt whither away and die, but this be a Christian land, me hearty....we can't have stuffs like that.

we've been distortin't the market ever since President Reagan's dynamic spike in Federal spendin', and 'tis gone on ever since.

'tis hard to see a way outta it that doesn't involve a great deal 'o short term misery.

i don't wanna see that misery, at least not right now, aye?

i be in me prime earnin' years, afterall.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Mertex]

Well, if you notice I said, "if you're not a Republican, you're expressing their feelings". Also, I hate to make you aware of it, but it isn't just about you.

Then why discuss me and the 'feelings' I share with Republican?

Because you said you weren't a Republican - most conservatives don't want to admit it although they act/talk just like one.

More and more money is being funneled to education than ever before. As long as Government keeps devaluing the worth of a high school diploma, everyone will have these low paying jobs. As long as the economy is creating more of these jobs, everyone will have these types of jobs.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Government (thanks to republicans) keeps cutting funding on Education.

Charts And Factsheets | The Committee for Education Funding

Sequestration Cuts Federal Student Aid Funding - Fastweb

The average disability recipient earns $13,000 while the average minimum wage worker earns $14,000. Maybe $1,000 is a lot of money to you, but it hardly make a difference to me or any of the 14 million on disability. Especially since only 1% of those who were on disability since 2008 have returned to the labour force since 2011.

Sounds pretty lucrative to me. Getting paid for not working, paying no taxes and having more disposable income. If the Government is going to offer me a sweet deal to have all of these things and not work, I would do it.

If you think $13k is lucrative go ahead and break a leg so you can get disability. I don't think people on disability get hurt on purpose just to get disability, but I know that is what most conservatives think.

Links for what? It's called a 'mis-allocation of resources.' The government is distorting the market and keeping people in the wrong areas of the economy. It's doing this by keeping interests rates low and stimulating the economy. The moment this stops, all of jobs which has been created in the recovery will be lost instantly. And these people which obtained jobs due to false market signals will have to find new jobs.

Links to articles/data that verifies what you are saying. How do you figure the government keeps people in the wrong area of the economy - if anything, the disparaging difference in tax rates keeps the middle-class from progressing.

In name only. Policies suggest otherwise.

Not sure what you mean. They don't have the same name, and the ideology is different. But, sounds like you agree that they are not one.

There is plenty of crime in places where the police force is higher. Typically in larger metropolitan areas with a population of 250,000 or more. Police can't prevent most or even the majority of the crime. Free individuals are better equipped to protect themselves and have a greater incentive to do so.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about, or you aren't keeping up with facts. There aren't enough policemen to properly address crime and Republican/conservatives want to cut back even more.

And America is a free country, everyone is free, and that does not equate to people being equipped to protect themselves. You're just speaking nonsense now.

Boston bombing shows vulnerabilities in public spaces, police say - latimes.com

Chicago Police No Longer Respond To Lesser Crimes - News - POLICE Magazine

Since when is it the Government's responsibility to do for people what they can do for themselves?

What exactly does the government do for people that they can do for themselves?

What if I told you that only 352 people paid taxes at the highest marginal rate (91%) in 1954? Narrative destroying, I know. Virtually, no one paid taxes at those high rates during the 50's. Sounds like a nice tax code to go back to if you ask me.

And nobody pays the highest rates set for the uber wealthy, today, either. The reason being loopholes and tax shelters. But when someone like Romney can pay taxes at 13% while people like me have to pay at 25%, something is not right. Perhaps the reason the economy was greater in the 50's is because all the things that made it great have either been destroyed or are being destroyed by the Republican party.

In the 1950s, American workers made the highest wages in the world. We also enjoyed the best workers' benefits and the longest vacations. Most high-tech products were made in America. I'm not sure what the world's top 10 corporations and top 10 banks were in the 50s. But I'd bet they were all American.

America had a trade SURPLUS in the 50s. The dollar was strong. The U.S. middle class was the envy of the world. The U.S. made the best cars in the world. America's manufacturing base and infrastructure were second to none. U.S. public schools trounced their counterparts worldwide. Nations around the world regularly sent representatives here to study how we did it.

The 1950s was the decade that America became AMERICA, the superpower. We really were No. 1 back in the 50s. Today, we're only No. 1 in the minds of the "Rah Rah U.S.A.!" jingoistic retards of the Tea Party.

BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: America Prospered in the 1950s With a 91-percent High-End Tax Rate

Nothing is different. People still do what is in their own separate interests. The only difference is the type of economy they are forced to pursue their own interests in. The economy is typically less economically free. Business activity is hindered, saving is discouraged, investing is squandered and risk taking is looked down upon. Everyone has decided that sacrifice for the good of the collective is what is necessary. And who does that help? No one.

Oh, but there is a big difference. Sorry, but you have been drinking the KoolAid from the Republican party, which caters to the wealthy and have swallowed their lie. They want you to believe that the middle class is doing great, and that the rich are already paying more than their fair share, but in reality, all the subsidies and tax cuts/loopholes/shelters they want to provide for the rich are only dismantling the middle class.

Watch the video in the article linked:

The Problem With The Wealth Inequality In America Video. It Commits Worstall's Fallacy - Forbes

 

[georgephillip]

When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall he moved right.
When Obama refused to prosecute Wall Street for their role in the Great Recession, he moved right.
When Obama refused to back a public option in his health care "reform", he moved right.
I've often heard conservatives claim a leftward drift over the past two generations, but I've never seen an example of it.

ahoy GeorgePhillip,

i think thats a fair and reasonable observation, me hearty.

really, when ye climb up into the crows nest and peer thru the lookin' glass, the entire Democratic Party and its leadership hath shifted slowly, inexorably, to the right o'er the last 40 years.

thar be no liberals, at least none that push legislation and the national dialogue to the left. what ye have be folks like Mr. Obama, who essentially be moderate conservatives, just like Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan.

the government itself is more conservative, farrrRrRrRRRRrrr more so than in 1973, all branches 'o government. just look at the courts, me friend.

fer example, how would this SCOTUS have ruled on Roe vs Wade?

in the landmark 1973 case 'o Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education, the SCOTUS basically upheld busing...how would the justices 'o today rule on that one?

in 1972 the highest court in the land relaxed hurdles to votin' (by alot, in me own eyes) in the Dunn v. Blumstein, somethin' i have a hard time seein' this SCOTUS doin'.

in 1969 California became the first state to adopt the "no fault" divorce law, a triumph by Mr. Reagan that vastly liberated folks to divorce away at a never before seen clip. again, its hard to see a conservative politician championin' this sorta thing in 2013.

1972 also saw the Equal Rights Amendment get passed, and its very hard to imagine a legislative push fer that sorta thing in 2013 - an era whar elected officials muse openly 'bout a woman's physiological ability to resist gettin' pregnant durin' a "legitimate" rape.

i see the huge majority 'o Democrats bein' moderate conservatives, just like most Republicans are.

*nod nod*

- MeadHallPirate

That's how it looks from my perch, MHP.
SCOTUS was briefly interrupted by the Great Depression but ever since it has slowly but surely expanded corporate power to the benefit of 10% of the US population and the detriment of the other 90%. Ever since the Union membership began its historic decline, through no shortage of its own corruption, IMHO, Democrats have become increasingly dependent upon the same investor class as Republicans to fund their campaigns. Maybe the internet could be used to convince tens of millions of US voters to FLUSH a couple hundred Republicans AND Democrats from DC in a single news cycle? Sort of a long walk on a short plank...

 

[AmazonTania]

Because you said you weren't a Republican - most conservatives don't want to admit it although they act/talk just like one.

If I was one, I wouldn't care. I'd just tell you. It's not like you're that important. You're to set on this idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a Republican. This thread breeds on partisan hackery and barely anyone here is on the same intellectual level that I would need to hide that. I don't cling to parties or ideology (except maybe my own). I'm not even an American citizen. All I care about is making money. That's really not that difficult to understand.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Government (thanks to republicans) keeps cutting funding on Education.

Charts And Factsheets | The Committee for Education Funding

Sequestration Cuts Federal Student Aid Funding - Fastweb

Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting data or any other information from sources which have an obvious agenda or advocate for a particular policy. But if you care to look at the Federal Government outlays and expenditures, you'll see that Education spending is projected to increase. You wouldn't see from looking at Google all night, but hey. Research is difficult, I understand.

If you think $13k is lucrative go ahead and break a leg so you can get disability. I don't think people on disability get hurt on purpose just to get disability, but I know that is what most conservatives think.

If I had a minimum wage job, I would. The Government wouldn't pay me the same salary as a disabled Stock Broker. I might still do it if I become lazy enough (not that I'm doing anything productive, anyway), but there is no way I'd be able to maintain my lifestyle.

Links to articles/data that verifies what you are saying. How do you figure the government keeps people in the wrong area of the economy - if anything, the disparaging difference in tax rates keeps the middle-class from progressing.

The lowering of the fed funds rate makes it cheap for businesses to operate, which is good for businesses which thrive on spending and speculation (like hedge funds and retailers) and bad for businesses which make a living off savings and investment (banks and manufacturing). I already told you, it's called a 'misallocation of resources.' If you picked up a economic text, you'll figure it out.

Not sure what you mean. They don't have the same name, and the ideology is different. But, sounds like you agree that they are not one.

You're confused. Republicans and Democrats are merely two sides of the same coin.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about, or you aren't keeping up with facts. There aren't enough policemen to properly address crime and Republican/conservatives want to cut back even more.

And America is a free country, everyone is free, and that does not equate to people being equipped to protect themselves. You're just speaking nonsense now.

Boston bombing shows vulnerabilities in public spaces, police say - latimes.com

Chicago Police No Longer Respond To Lesser Crimes - News - POLICE Magazine

Your first example is a terrorist attack. Your second are police who no longer respond to petty crime (being that the city is practically a war zone waiting to happen). And this shows that you don't have enough policemen at all....

What else you got?

What exactly does the government do for people that they can do for themselves?

Aside for Defenses, carrying out assassinations, killing people and breaking things, virtually almost everything.

And nobody pays the highest rates set for the uber wealthy, today, either. The reason being loopholes and tax shelters.

Good.

But when someone like Romney can pay taxes at 13% while people like me have to pay at 25%, something is not right.

Are we really no smarter as a nation that we are still comparing Capital Gains to Wages and Salaries? If this bothers you, quit your jobs and invest in some stocks.

Perhaps the reason the economy was greater in the 50's is because all the things that made it great have either been destroyed or are being destroyed by the Republican party.

America had a trade SURPLUS in the 50s. The dollar was strong. The U.S. middle class was the envy of the world. The U.S. made the best cars in the world. America's manufacturing base and infrastructure were second to none. U.S. public schools trounced their counterparts worldwide. Nations around the world regularly sent representatives here to study how we did it.

The 1950s was the decade that America became AMERICA, the superpower. We really were No. 1 back in the 50s. Today, we're only No. 1 in the minds of the "Rah Rah U.S.A.!" jingoistic retards of the Tea Party.
[/COLOR]
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: America Prospered in the 1950s With a 91-percent High-End Tax Rate

Yawn, that's nice... If you think all that was lost in just under a Republican administration, then you are a bigger hack that I originally thought.

• America started running a negative net investment on the Balance of Payments in 1976 under Carter, but America didn't become a debtor nation until 1988 under Reagan.

• In 1976, America stopped being a net exporter and ceased to run a trade surplus under Carter, but the trade deficits didn't explode until under Clinton.

• America was taken off the Gold Standard in 1971 under Nixon, the currency was totally devalued under Carter, and the currency is still being destroyed under Obama. Your dollar has lost 17% of it's value in 40 years. 96% of it's value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

• Little known detail you've under-looked, mate. When America actually had a top notch education system, it was actually before the creation of the Department of Education (Jimmy Carter creation). American children still had education, long before the Government got involved. Now American children are barely being educated. And somehow, you believe throwing more money down an educational rat-hole is going to put you on top again. What a joke.

Both parties have been playing you and are feeding off of your economic ignorance. What is it going to take before you aren't fooled no longer. But I don't care, I get paid either way.

Oh, but there is a big difference. Sorry, but you have been drinking the KoolAid from the Republican party, which caters to the wealthy and have swallowed their lie. They want you to believe that the middle class is doing great, and that the rich are already paying more than their fair share, but in reality, all the subsidies and tax cuts/loopholes/shelters they want to provide for the rich are only dismantling the middle class.

Sorry, the only person here drinking the kool-aid is you. You haven't formed one sentence from a coherent speaking person. Just the ramblings of a partisan hack. You do understand that the prosperity you believe was so great in the 1950's came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor, correct? Today, it's coming off the backs of really only the rich. In 1954, the Top 50% only accounted for 6% of all government revenue. Today, they account for 98.21%. Apparently that's still not good enough. Corporations have had it, and they're investing in countries which vastly better than America.

The CEO of Coca-Cola says Communist China is more business friendly than America. Apple Inc. would rather go into debt paying 3% interests on a $17 billion dollar corporate bond than pay a 40% corporate tax on their revenue streams. Corporate profits are at record highs, but they're still not hiring or investing their money back into the economy. They'd rather pool their resources in the Caribbean islands.

Being an economic illiteracy is just one of your sins. Being a fool is another. Sooner or later, you're going to have to wake up and understand this very troubling fact: America is Business Unfriendly. Until this changes, you're not going to see that great manufacturing base America once had in the 1950's, you're not going to see a great middle class and it'll be a long time before you'll see anything that says "Made In America" again.

Watch the video in the article linked:

The Problem With The Wealth Inequality In America Video. It Commits Worstall's Fallacy - Forbes

What am I suppose to be seeing here? Most people who show me stuff on wealth inequality have a very poor understanding about the topic in general.

 

[AmazonTania]

ahoy AmazonTania,

hail matey, and well met.

no disagreement in what ye said thar, matey...but whats to be done? what would happen to Mississippi...or Arkansas...or Alabama....or Alaska, if the Federal spigot was to be keelhauled and shut off?

People in those states as well as many others would lose their jobs.

government no doubt be distortin' the market - if they just got outta medicaid, folks would no doubt whither away and die, but this be a Christian land, me hearty....we can't have stuffs like that.

So there was no health care in America before Medicaid?

we've been distortin't the market ever since President Reagan's dynamic spike in Federal spendin', and 'tis gone on ever since.

I guess he has been distorting markets with his military spending. His spending was just bidding up the prices for tanks, ships and bombs all over the country. People couldn't get their ammunition for guns.

'tis hard to see a way outta it that doesn't involve a great deal 'o short term misery.

i don't wanna see that misery, at least not right now, aye?

Short term pain now for real long lasting prosperity or zero pain now for much more pain in the future. Those are really the only options now that we've failed to do the right thing once the bottom fell out of the market.

i be in me prime earnin' years, afterall.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Cheers then.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

ahoy oh acerbic AmazonTania,

well met again, matey.

People in those states as well as many others would lose their jobs.

so that would be a bad thing, aye? many 'o our Southern states (i live in one now, though i hail from Nor'eastern part 'o our nation) would experience severe pain if the Federal spigot were turned off.

So there was no health care in America before Medicaid?

i think thar were doctors and nurses and hospitals 'fore Medicaid, at least i think thar was. the two main things that Medicaid hath addressed be;

1) prenatal infant care, and care fer poverty stricken mothers in general...certainly a "pro-life" position, i'd reckon.

2) disability - them who be too injured and broken down to be workin' members 'o society. alarmingly, the states with the highest disability rates mirror the states that would suffer the most if Federal spendin' was tamped down. they be;

West Virginia 12.6%
Kentucky 11.4%
Arkansas 11.2%
Mississippi 11.0%
Louisiana 10.3%
Maine 10.2%
Oklahoma 10.2%
Oregon 10.0%

Access to Disability Data: Chartbook on Work and Disability

i'd like government deficit spendin' to go down as much as the next swabby, but if we sail the course ye desire, the South will be keelhauled.

I guess he has been distorting markets with his military spending. His spending was just bidding up the prices for tanks, ships and bombs all over the country. People couldn't get their ammunition for guns.

it was military spendin', aye, but it was alotta other things too, me hearty. Mr. Reagan doubled the spendin' at the Dept. 'o Education. he increased farm programs by 140%. foreign aid? doubled.

gross Federal debt? tripled.

Short term pain now for real long lasting prosperity or zero pain now for much more pain in the future. Those are really the only options now that we've failed to do the right thing once the bottom fell out of the market.

i'd rather have a low grade chronic ache fer now, rather than acute pain. i have but one life matey, and as i said, i be in me peak earnin' years. i don't want our vessel to run aground at this very moment.

*salutes*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Mertex]

If I was one, I wouldn't care. I'd just tell you. It's not like you're that important. You're to set on this idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a Republican. This thread breeds on partisan hackery and barely anyone here is on the same intellectual level that I would need to hide that. I don't cling to parties or ideology (except maybe my own). I'm not even an American citizen. All I care about is making money. That's really not that difficult to understand.

Considering that many Republicans won't admit that they are, I'm supposted to believe that you aren't one, although you defend all their policies? And you claim that you don't cling to parties or ideology, but clearly you are in denial, because everything you post smacks of conservatism.

Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting data or any other information from sources which have an obvious agenda or advocate for a particular policy. But if you care to look at the Federal Government outlays and expenditures, you'll see that Education spending is projected to increase. You wouldn't see from looking at Google all night, but hey. Research is difficult, I understand.

Of course you do, because they don't say what you want them to say. And posting a link and not highlighting where it says what you say it does is a bit suspect. Why don't you highlight where it says that Education spending is projected to increase, if it does say such a thing. I have a hard time accepting data that is not backed by facts. Of course, even if Education spending is increased, unless it is a percentage of GDP it doesn't mean anything, because surely you are smart enough to recognize that the cost of things is always going up.
But hey, here is a government source to once again debunk your assertion.

In the mid 1980s education spending began to increase again. It flatlined at about 5.5 percent of GDP in the 1990s, but resumed its growth in the 2000s, reaching nearly 6.2 percent in 2010 before beginning a decline in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Charts of Education Spending - UsGovernmentSpending.com

If I had a minimum wage job, I would. The Government wouldn't pay me the same salary as a disabled Stock Broker. I might still do it if I become lazy enough (not that I'm doing anything productive, anyway), but there is no way I'd be able to maintain my lifestyle.

So, you would be willing to do what you are dissing other people that you "think" are doing the same thing. Interesting.

The lowering of the fed funds rate makes it cheap for businesses to operate, which is good for businesses which thrive on spending and speculation (like hedge funds and retailers) and bad for businesses which make a living off savings and investment (banks and manufacturing). I already told you, it's called a 'misallocation of resources.' If you picked up a economic text, you'll figure it out.

Sounds like you are repeating what you read in some text book but have no idea what it means. Gotcha!

You're confused. Republicans and Democrats are merely two sides of the same coin.

You're delusional. Republicans and Democrats are as different as night and day. The Republican party is the party of the rich, supported by dumb middle-class people that don't realize their own party doesn't benefit them unless they are rich.

Your first example is a terrorist attack. Your second are police who no longer respond to petty crime (being that the city is practically a war zone waiting to happen). And this shows that you don't have enough policemen at all....

Oh, so who do you think responded to the Boston bomb explosion recently? Martians? And no, the reason the police no longer respond to petty crime is because they don't have enough police to take care of all the different types of crime - mostly due to loss of funding. You are in a constant state of denial to facts.

What else you got?

Why don't you show me what you've got? All you have done so far is offer lip service without backing any of it. Like I said before, you don't really know what you are talking about.

Aside for Defenses, carrying out assassinations, killing people and breaking things, virtually almost everything.

Again, "almost everything" just tells me you are just blowing smoke and can't really explain your comments. Why don't you give me some examples?

Good.

That you think it is good that the uber wealthy end up paying a lower rate than middle-class might seem to suggest that you are one of the uber wealthy, but based on your inability to explain yourself I seriously doubt it, it just shows that you are in the same Faux News bubble as most conservatives.

Are we really no smarter as a nation that we are still comparing Capital Gains to Wages and Salaries? If this bothers you, quit your jobs and invest in some stocks.

What's so damn special about Capital Gains? Why do you think they should be taxed at a lower rate?

Yawn, that's nice... If you think all that was lost in just under a Republican administration, then you are a bigger hack that I originally thought.

The proof is in the pudding. Who is the party that wants to get rid of Education? Who is the party that wants to do away with Roe v Wade? Who is the party that wants to get rid of unions.
You are delusional or don't pay attention to what is going on around you.

Both parties have been playing you and are feeding off of your economic ignorance. What is it going to take before you aren't fooled no longer. But I don't care, I get paid either way.

And how are the Republican/Democratic party feeding off my economic ignorance? Do you generally just spout of nonsense or is this a new trend? So tell me, how do you keep them from feeding off your economic ignorance?

Sorry, the only person here drinking the kool-aid is you. You haven't formed one sentence from a coherent speaking person. Just the ramblings of a partisan hack. You do understand that the prosperity you believe was so great in the 1950's came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor, correct? Today, it's coming off the backs of really only the rich. In 1954, the Top 50% only accounted for 6% of all government revenue. Today, they account for 98.21%. Apparently that's still not good enough. Corporations have had it, and they're investing in countries which vastly better than America.

Don't blame your comprehension problems on me. You're the one that has been rambling and spewing out comments without any facts to back you up. And you are totally uninformed if you think that prosperity is coming off the backs of only the rich. Perhaps prosperity for them. And your elementary understanding of how they account for 98.21% of the revenue without taking into consideration just how much they are raking in (most of them not even having to work for it) just shows how totally brainwashed most conservatives really are. As for corporations investing in countries other than America, it's only because they can use slave labor, but the tax rates are better for them here and the subsidies they enjoy, over the super profits they make and the measly wages they pay out to their employees are way better here than anywhere else. If that wasn't so, they would have all moved out by now.

The CEO of Coca-Cola says Communist China is more business friendly than America. Apple Inc. would rather go into debt paying 3% interests on a $17 billion dollar corporate bond than pay a 40% corporate tax on their revenue streams. Corporate profits are at record highs, but they're still not hiring or investing their money back into the economy. They'd rather pool their resources in the Caribbean islands.

You need to stay current. Apparently you don't watch the news?

Why Apple And GE Are Bringing Back Manufacturing - Forbes

Being an economic illiteracy is just one of your sins. Being a fool is another. Sooner or later, you're going to have to wake up and understand this very troubling fact: America is Business Unfriendly. Until this changes, you're not going to see that great manufacturing base America once had in the 1950's, you're not going to see a great middle class and it'll be a long time before you'll see anything that says "Made In America" again.

Says the one that posts a lot of blather without proof. Posting stuff off a textbook may make you think you sound informed but sooner or later the fact that you are clueless starts to show up.

What am I suppose to be seeing here? Most people who show me stuff on wealth inequality have a very poor understanding about the topic in general.

Well, I'm sorry. If you weren't able to grasp the meaning of the video, you are even more clueless than I thought you were at first, and I'm really wasting my time trying to educate you.

Have a nice day!

 

[dblack]

No, and sentiments like this are part of the problem. They have not moved right, they have moved to state power – not an ideal on the right.

What you are stating is essentially the core of the problem, as both parties merge the members just insult the other side. That does not help the problem but exacerbates it. Those on the right will tell you the same thing, that the right has moved left. Bush certainly was not what you would call right. That is because both parties are moving but not to the left or right, they are moving in another direction entirely and we sit here bickering that the new direction is somehow ‘the other side’ when it is not.

When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall he moved right.
When Obama refused to prosecute Wall Street for their role in the Great Recession, he moved right.
When Obama refused to back a public option in his health care "reform", he moved right.
I've often heard conservatives claim a leftward drift over the past two generations, but I've never seen an example of it.

Mostly because you don’t know what moving right is. BTW, the examples that you gave are not ‘moving right’ save for possibly Clinton.

You have set up a straw man for the right. I could as easily demand that Obama Care was a massive shift to the left. It would be false though. The difference here is that realize that bullshit the government is pushing is not really what the left embodies. You seem to not realize that though.

You are part of the problem. As long as we are knocking down straw men on the other side rather than engaging each other on the ACTUAL positions, the two parties will continue to grow in power. This is because those astray men are always nuts and evil. The right gets to point and say ‘elect us because ANYTHING is better than Obama’ with all the straw men of the left. All the while, the left is saying ‘elect Obama, ANYTHING is better than Romney’ with straw men of the right. Then Obama/Romney/Bush/whoever the fuck gets in office can pass whatever corporate bullshit they want to because there is always that other ‘evil’ side making them look good.

It was OBAMA that married you to the insurance companies, not the right. Do you really thing that he is on the left? Of course not, you are demanding that he moved right. Well I have to let you know, Obama does not represent ANYTHING that the right does. I guess that means he did NOT move right. He moved somewhere else…

There are minor differences between the parties, at least on the brochures, but when push comes to shove, both parties are following a corporatist agenda. All too often, people in a given era fail to recognize the most significant developments going on around them - maybe because they are too steeped in the status quo to recognize what's happening. I think we're in the midst of a massive shift, worldwide, away from liberal democracies and toward authoritarian corporatist nations.

The new corporatist status quo dispenses with equal protection and universal rights, replacing them with state privilege and class-based rights. It will be an effective platform to launch wars and control people, but it will be neither of the ideals we so often argue about here (socialist security vs libertarian freedom).

 

[georgephillip]

"Then the courts and the corporate lawyers came along and created a whole new body of doctrine which gave corporations authority and power that they never had before. If you look at the background of it, it's the same background that led to fascism and Bolshevism.

"A lot of it was supported by people called progressives, for these reasons: They said, individual rights are gone.

"We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That's supposed to be good if you're a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of that same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny.

"They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots.

"It's fairly recent. We think of corporations as immutable, but they were designed. It was a conscious design which worked as Adam Smith said: the principal architects of policy consolidate state power and use it for their interests."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

It seems to me those "principal architects of policy" have always answered to the richest 1% of humanity; at least since the institution of chattel slavery came into existence.

Do private fortunes exist without war slaves and debt slaves?

 

[editec]

Corporations of TODAY are absolutely NOTHING LIKE the corporations of the days of ADAM SMITH.

In ADAM SMITHS DAY..

1. they were created ONLY for a specific project and were not expected to exist forever.
2. they could not buy other corporations
3. They could not conglomerate.

The amount of ignorance spewed (mostly by the rightest but sometime the leftest, too) about this nations ECONOMIC HSTORY is astounding.

Pretty much everything some of you folks think you know about the history of economics and finance in the USA is pure nonsense

 

[dblack]

Maybe you all get sick of me saying so (or maybe you just don't care ), but the corporatism I'm talking about isn't the same thing as 'corporate tyranny' - it's not, necessarily, about government that indulges the interests of incorporated businesses or the very wealthy.

Corporatism is a form of government that exercises authority by 'horse-trading' power and privilege among the organized power blocs in society. These power blocs are the 'corporations' of corporatism and while they often represent business or industry groups, it's a broader concept than that, encompassing all of the other organized interest groups vying for influence (labor, religion, agriculture, ethnic groups, etc ...).

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe you all get sick of me saying so (or maybe you just don't care ), but the corporatism I'm talking about isn't the same thing as 'corporate tyranny' - it's not, necessarily, about government that indulges the interests of incorporated businesses or the very wealthy.

Corporatism is a form of government that exercises authority by 'horse-trading' power and privilege among the organized power blocs in society. These power blocs are the 'corporations' of corporatism and while they often represent business or industry groups, it's a broader concept than that, encompassing all of the other organized interest groups vying for influence (labor, religion, agriculture, ethnic groups, etc ...).

What's the influence of capitalism on the form of government you're describing?
Organized power blocks influence legislation today in direct proportion to their campaign donations to both major US parties. Capitalism has created dark pools of wealth over the past 150 years in this country and concentrated its power in a relatively small number of families. I don't think the phenomena is anything new, but the power of capital has never been greater. Labor unions or religions or ethnic groups can't come close to matching corporate influence over government.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations of TODAY are absolutely NOTHING LIKE the corporations of the days of ADAM SMITH.

In ADAM SMITHS DAY..

1. they were created ONLY for a specific project and were not expected to exist forever.
2. they could not buy other corporations
3. They could not conglomerate.

The amount of ignorance spewed (mostly by the rightest but sometime the leftest, too) about this nations ECONOMIC HSTORY is astounding.

Pretty much everything some of you folks think you know about the history of economics and finance in the USA is pure nonsense

I don't think it should surprise anyone why critical thinking skills and economic history are missing in US public education. I remember studying US History every other year throughout middle and high school, but don't remember ever coming across this:

"It's the same when you read Jefferson. He lived a half century later, so he saw state capitalism developing, and he despised it, of course. He said it's going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[dblack]

Maybe you all get sick of me saying so (or maybe you just don't care ), but the corporatism I'm talking about isn't the same thing as 'corporate tyranny' - it's not, necessarily, about government that indulges the interests of incorporated businesses or the very wealthy.

Corporatism is a form of government that exercises authority by 'horse-trading' power and privilege among the organized power blocs in society. These power blocs are the 'corporations' of corporatism and while they often represent business or industry groups, it's a broader concept than that, encompassing all of the other organized interest groups vying for influence (labor, religion, agriculture, ethnic groups, etc ...).

What's the influence of capitalism on the form of government you're describing?

Corporatism is independent of economic system. There are socialist and capitalist varieties. The common trait is their disregard for equal protection and a preference for class-based rights as opposed to universal individual rights. In general, the goal of the corporatist state is not to protect individual rights and ensure justice when they've been violated, but rather to "run" society.

Organized power blocks influence legislation today in direct proportion to their campaign donations to both major US parties. Capitalism has created dark pools of wealth over the past 150 years in this country and concentrated its power in a relatively small number of families. I don't think the phenomena is anything new, but the power of capital has never been greater. Labor unions or religions or ethnic groups can't come close to matching corporate influence over government.

That may, or may not be true - depending on the given time period or circumstances. But arguing over whether this or that interest group has more influence over government than another, and therefore enjoys more privilege and power as a result, is to miss the point. The point is that government shouldn't be in the business of dispensing power and privilege in the first place. The idea that it's right and natural for government to function as a power broker in society, granting favors to groups it approves of and penalizing those who don't 'play ball', is the core premise of corporatism.

 

[georgephillip]

Is this an acceptable starting point for defining "corporatism?"

"Theory and practice of organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state. According to the theory, employers and employees would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and largely controlling the people and activities within their jurisdiction.

"Its chief spokesman was Adam Müller (b. 1779—d. 1829), court philosopher to the Fürst (prince) von Metternich, who conceived of a 'class state' in which the classes operated as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life.

"This idea found favour in central Europe after the French Revolution, but it was not put into practice until Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy; its implementation there had barely begun by the start of World War II, which resulted in his fall.

"After World War II, the governments of many democratic western European countries (e.g., Austria, Norway, and Sweden) developed strong corporatist elements in an attempt to mediate and reduce conflict between businesses and trade unions and to enhance economic growth."

If so, the term can produce a wide variety of different governments, yet I still strongly suspect the richest 1% in each state will write the tax and trade policies.

Corporatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[dblack]

Is this an acceptable starting point for defining "corporatism?"

"Theory and practice of organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state. According to the theory, employers and employees would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and largely controlling the people and activities within their jurisdiction.

"Its chief spokesman was Adam Müller (b. 1779—d. 1829), court philosopher to the Fürst (prince) von Metternich, who conceived of a 'class state' in which the classes operated as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life.

"This idea found favour in central Europe after the French Revolution, but it was not put into practice until Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy; its implementation there had barely begun by the start of World War II, which resulted in his fall.

"After World War II, the governments of many democratic western European countries (e.g., Austria, Norway, and Sweden) developed strong corporatist elements in an attempt to mediate and reduce conflict between businesses and trade unions and to enhance economic growth."

That summarizes it nicely, yeah. Thanks for posting it.

If so, the term can produce a wide variety of different governments, yet I still strongly suspect the richest 1% in each state will write the tax and trade policies.

In as much as the richest (under capitalism at least) are usually the most ambitious in general, yeah, you're probably right. But it's worth noting that similar abuse of influence can happen under any economic system and, while I haven't looked at case studies in any detail, I expect a ruling elite would form in non-capitalist nations as well. They just deal in different forms of 'currency'.

Again, I don't see a desire to influence government as the root of all this evil. And there's certainly nothing wrong with petitioning government for policies we feel strongly about. It's how government responds that is the problem. When the state steps outside it's principal role of defending our rights, and instead seeks broad control over society on behalf of powerful interests (rich or not), then we have a problem.

Jefferson, and others, sought to keep this abuse of government power in check by constitutionally limiting what government could do, but that barn door has been open for a while now.

 

[AmazonTania]

Considering that many Republicans won't admit that they are, I'm supposted to believe that you aren't one, although you defend all their policies? And you claim that you don't cling to parties or ideology, but clearly you are in denial, because everything you post smacks of conservatism.

Yes, because Conservatism and Liberalism are the only ideologies in the world. It's impossible for anyone to be Libertarian, Volunterist, Keynesian, Austrian, Monetarist, Marxist, Anarchist or any of those other ideologies.

I don't defend all Conservative policies. So far, all you know about me is that I don't like taxes and I'm not a big fan of Government. So congrats, you've narrowed down my ideology to about 6 different ideologies it could be besides conservatism, but you're certain that I am a conservative because that's who you are trained to hate so much.

The world is much more interesting without MSNBC, I promise...

Of course you do, because they don't say what you want them to say. And posting a link and not highlighting where it says what you say it does is a bit suspect. Why don't you highlight where it says that Education spending is projected to increase, if it does say such a thing. I have a hard time accepting data that is not backed by facts. Of course, even if Education spending is increased, unless it is a percentage of GDP it doesn't mean anything, because surely you are smart enough to recognize that the cost of things is always going up.

If you understand basic economics then you understand that all spending is a percentage of GDP. As long as a country has economic activity, someone is consuming somewhere. And as long as someone is consuming, the country will have a GDP figure. Keep in mind that GDP in itself is misleading metric, so spending relative to GDP can be just as misleading. Spending can increase, but GDP can increase at a much faster rate. This will decrease spending as a percentage of GDP, although there is no de-funding going on at all...

Also, if you go to table 9.9, you can clearly see. Everything outlined there for you. Not that I have to outline it for you. Your own source does a good job of that perfectly...

But hey, here is a government source to once again debunk your assertion.

USGovernmentSpending.com is not a government source. It's just a blog website run by someone who records Government data.. I guess you can't even do research without sounding completely clueless. And according to your own website (which is a blog, not a government source), Education spending is projected (government estimated) to increase by $100 billion in 2014/2015 to $0.9 Trillion. By 2016, it will increase to a full $1 Trillion dollars.

Where is this de-funding you are talking about?

In the mid 1980s education spending began to increase again. It flatlined at about 5.5 percent of GDP in the 1990s, but resumed its growth in the 2000s, reaching nearly 6.2 percent in 2010 before beginning a decline in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Charts of Education Spending - UsGovernmentSpending.com

So because spending declined after a recession, that means Republicans are trying to de-fund education? A decrease in spending after the bursting of a massive asset bubble? Can't imagine why that would happened. Is it so hard to debate someone with a modicum of economic understanding?

So, you would be willing to do what you are dissing other people that you "think" are doing the same thing. Interesting.

1% of people on disability have returned to the labour force in 2011 after being on it since 2008. You're pretty good at using Google. You can research this.

Sounds like you are repeating what you read in some text book but have no idea what it means. Gotcha!

I understand what it means, as my entire career is based around finance. I just never thought it would be this difficult to explain economic references to someone who hasn't taken a single course of economics.

You're delusional. Republicans and Democrats are as different as night and day. The Republican party is the party of the rich, supported by dumb middle-class people that don't realize their own party doesn't benefit them unless they are rich.

Are you essentially saying that Democrats are not the party of the rich? So you are saying that there are zero elites/wealthy who align with Democrats?

Who exactly do you think Quantitative Easing has benefited, you?

Oh, so who do you think responded to the Boston bomb explosion recently? Martians? And no, the reason the police no longer respond to petty crime is because they don't have enough police to take care of all the different types of crime - mostly due to loss of funding. You are in a constant state of denial to facts.

More police wouldn't have prevented the bombing and the Chicago police force takes up 40% of the Chicago city budget. The police has plenty of funding. It just has better things to do with it's time. I am in well possession of the facts. All you've done was just link to me some puff pieces from articles. I'm not interested in their opinions, nor yours.

Why don't you show me what you've got? All you have done so far is offer lip service without backing any of it. Like I said before, you don't really know what you are talking about.

I can't disprove a negative. That's an intellectual fallacy.

Again, "almost everything" just tells me you are just blowing smoke and can't really explain your comments. Why don't you give me some examples?

'Almost everything' means what it means. As in, the Government does almost everything for individuals which they can do for themselves. I don't see how difficult that is to comprehend. But if you really can't get it, throw out an example, I'll dumb it down for you.

That you think it is good that the uber wealthy end up paying a lower rate than middle-class might seem to suggest that you are one of the uber wealthy, but based on your inability to explain yourself I seriously doubt it, it just shows that you are in the same Faux News bubble as most conservatives.

Only people with weak arguments create strawmen. All I said was that it's good that the wealthy are paying lower taxes because of tax shelters and loopholes. The poor/middle class have the same tax shelters and loopholes (i.e. laws which allow individuals to pay less taxes legally), as evident with the large amount of individuals in the bottom who currently pay zero taxes. I guess it's only problem when the wealthy tries to avoid taxes.

Since you are so interested in who I am, I will tell you that I'm not uber wealthy. I do work in wealth management on the other hand and I do give my clients exposure in to foreign markets with sounder fundamentals than the United States. We are consistently giving clients leverage in Emerging Markets, Asian Markets, Commonwealth countries and a few European markets. This investment strategy is center around inflation, reckless government policies, weak market fundamentals and higher taxes.

All the wealthy want to do is avoid higher taxes. Regardless of where they align, or which party they support. Warren Buffet, Oprah, Jack Lew, Bill Gates, etc. Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they ALL do it. I just make money by helping other people keep more of their wealth.

What's so damn special about Capital Gains? Why do you think they should be taxed at a lower rate?

I'm willing to bet that you've worked for someone else all your life (or most of your life rather). Your wages, as long as you work and are able to work, are guaranteed. Capital Gains, are not guaranteed. If all investments were guaranteed, then it really wouldn't matter which rate they were taxed at, but they're not. Some investments do not yield a return of 85%. Some investments don't even yield a return of even 50% (especially since not a single hedge fund has done better than flipping a coin in the last 30 years). Some investments even yield what we call, "LOSSES."

Every great idea needs capital to get off the ground, and many would have never done it without the necessary funds to do it. This is why investments need to be encouraged and to only why to do this is to lower taxes on capital gains. As all investments are calculated and considered after their after-tax return.

The proof is in the pudding. Who is the party that wants to get rid of Education? Who is the party that wants to do away with Roe v Wade? Who is the party that wants to get rid of unions.
You are delusional or don't pay attention to what is going on around you.

What does Roe v Wade and Unions have to do with the Trade Deficit, the value of the US Dollar, the Current Account Deficit, and the Balance of Payments? You shouldn't be referencing these topics if you can't understand them. Especially if all you are going to do is deflect on topics which weren't even mentioned before... It's better this way.

Also, who is currently advocating (or advocating in the past) that we should get rid of Education? Is it possible to cite an example without the information coming from a talking head?

And how are the Republican/Democratic party feeding off my economic ignorance? Do you generally just spout of nonsense or is this a new trend? So tell me, how do you keep them from feeding off your economic ignorance?

I've just explain examples of how both parties have destroyed your credit worthiness, your trade surplus, the value of your currency and your education. Somehow, you've fooled yourself into believe it was only Republicans which caused these things. Maybe I was incorrect the first time. It's only the Democrats feeding off your ignorance, but that's common for most partisan hacks. If I were debating a Republican, I'd have to explain the bigger Government under Reagan and the Protectionism under Bush.

Wrong is wrong, and bad is bad. Regardless of which political official people decide to elect. This is called Objectivism, which is another philosophic/ideology aligned with the author Ayn Rand. It disagrees with your batch of rhetoric, and any point of view which does this is automatically Conservatism, for sure.

Don't blame your comprehension problems on me. You're the one that has been rambling and spewing out comments without any facts to back you up. And you are totally uninformed if you think that prosperity is coming off the backs of only the rich.

Then where was it coming from? Again, in 1954 only 6% of all tax revenue came from the Top 50%, while today majority of the tax revenue comes from the Top 50%. Now, if we are basing prosperity on who is paying the most taxes, then by your logic it is the rich who is responsible for all the prosperity today. As oppose to the 1950's (when tax rates were much higher), the middle class and the working poor were responsible for that prosperity.

I, of course, do not base prosperity on who is paying the most taxes. I am just going by your own faulty logic.

Perhaps prosperity for them. And your elementary understanding of how they account for 98.21% of the revenue without taking into consideration just how much they are raking in (most of them not even having to work for it) just shows how totally brainwashed most conservatives really are.

How much they are taxed relative to their income is irrelevant. If the Government rakes in $1.7 Trillion dollars and the Top 50% contributes to 98.21% of that tax revenue, that means they contribute to $1.6 Trillion of all federal revenue. Maybe you should stop being a sour puss and contribute in your own way?

As for corporations investing in countries other than America, it's only because they can use slave labor, but the tax rates are better for them here and the subsidies they enjoy, over the super profits they make and the measly wages they pay out to their employees are way better here than anywhere else.

Another economic lesson for you. The wages are lower in other countries because they're less productive. It has very little to do with slave labor. In fact, these countries still have child labor because they are so unproductive. If the children didn't work as well, entire families would starve. Many of these people believe Western corporations employing them are great. What are the alternatives otherwise? Thievery, Prostitution, Human Trafficking, Drugs. People in these countries are forced to do these things to survive, while people in the West do these things because they're lazy and have no marketable skills.

And the tax rates are better in the United States than anywhere else? Really? I guess Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland just suddenly stopped becoming nations overnight. Aside from your economic illiteracy, we can add your geographical knowledge to your list of shortcomings.

If that wasn't so, they would have all moved out by now.

Eduardo Saverin is the CO-CEO of Facebook. He is a natural born American and he is renouncing his citizenship and moving to Singapore. Why is he doing this? I'll give you a hint: It isn't for the view...

You need to stay current. Apparently you don't watch the news?

Why Apple And GE Are Bringing Back Manufacturing - Forbes

You're the one who needs to stay current...

Apple's $17 Billion Bond Offering Makes History

And yeah, I am well aware of Apple's "plans" to invest in manufacturing in America, but that is all they are: plans. I'm glad you think it's cool that they've decided to throw you a small bone for $100 million in manufacturing. What a joke.

Do you have any idea how much money they've made in revenue in Q1 of 2013? 43.6 billion. Their net income is 9.5 billion. So you are suppose to be happy that Apple is spending less than .001% of it's revenue to help create a manufacturing base when it's willing to go into debt just it won't have to pay taxes to repatriate their net income...

This is about as pathetic as the time Obama cut $100 million from his $3.6 Trillion dollar budget and championed that as 'responsibility (Yes, it's sad that I remember that). I hate to tell you, but you are a drone. And your knowledge of these issues is embarrassing to say the least.

Says the one that posts a lot of blather without proof. Posting stuff off a textbook may make you think you sound informed but sooner or later the fact that you are clueless starts to show up.

If I only reference what I say when I really want to try. At this point, I'm just entertaining your ignorance. This is really not difficult at all.

Well, I'm sorry. If you weren't able to grasp the meaning of the video, you are even more clueless than I thought you were at first, and I'm really wasting my time trying to educate you.

Have a nice day!

Sorry, but you lack the knowledge and the fortitude to do any sort of educating here. Between your lack of knowledge on any regressive topics, your intellectual fallacies, your partisan hackery and your terrible research, you may have well have a note on the bottom of all your post stating, "©Rachel Maddow."

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

post moved