Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[JonKoch]

Sure he fixed them Bubba, even inheriting the policy that created that debt

Yeah, he fixed things so good that the Republicans have much more power than they did in 2009.

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?

Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*

Corporations are "persons", dumb ass, you were made a corporate entity i.e a "person" when your mother signed your all caps name certificate of "live birth" that they then monetized and made themselves the surety of that bond by copy writing your all caps fiction. You were made surety and collateral against the debt via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March, 1933 and the people lost allodial rights to property. Ever heard of HJR 192? Senate document #43 Senate resolution #62, page 9 paragraph 2??? April 17th, 1933? How it states "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state"......sounds like communism to me, eh?????

You really crack me up when you start bitching that things would be AWESOME under this debt slavery/fiat currency system if everyone making more money THAN you simply gave "da gubermint" more of their fiat currency/means of exchange and always vote "leftard" because if you don't? "You are voting against your own interests". Who in the fuck are you to presume as to know what is best for me? Who the fuck put your ilk in charge of knowing what is best for all? No one did..... so take a fucking hike, ass-wipe. You don't have a fucking clue about anything you post about. 8 days here and you are averaging 60 posts per day? Seriously? Do you have a job or is this your "job" to spew leftard talking points?

LMAOROG, You knuckleheads are good for a laugh at least Bubba

 

[Dale Smith]

Yeah, he fixed things so good that the Republicans have much more power than they did in 2009.

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?

Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*

Corporations are "persons", dumb ass, you were made a corporate entity i.e a "person" when your mother signed your all caps name certificate of "live birth" that they then monetized and made themselves the surety of that bond by copy writing your all caps fiction. You were made surety and collateral against the debt via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March, 1933 and the people lost allodial rights to property. Ever heard of HJR 192? Senate document #43 Senate resolution #62, page 9 paragraph 2??? April 17th, 1933? How it states "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state"......sounds like communism to me, eh?????

You really crack me up when you start bitching that things would be AWESOME under this debt slavery/fiat currency system if everyone making more money THAN you simply gave "da gubermint" more of their fiat currency/means of exchange and always vote "leftard" because if you don't? "You are voting against your own interests". Who in the fuck are you to presume as to know what is best for me? Who the fuck put your ilk in charge of knowing what is best for all? No one did..... so take a fucking hike, ass-wipe. You don't have a fucking clue about anything you post about. 8 days here and you are averaging 60 posts per day? Seriously? Do you have a job or is this your "job" to spew leftard talking points?

LMAOROG, You knuckleheads are good for a laugh at least Bubba

Jon SEZ??????

"You make me laugh because I dont understand what your saying and I dont know how to use punctuation and I dont spell so good but I be smarts because I watch CNN and I vote leftard you Bubbas and I post all day to combat those that know more then me due you here me due you????"""


LMAO! Damn!! It only took you a week and 500 plus posts to become a running joke. I call you out to debate? You run like a cowardly chicken.....hang onto your misconceptions because I doubt you have the I.Q to face reality even if it hit you upside that sloped, neanderthal skull of yours.

(snicker)

 

[JonKoch]

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?

Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*

Corporations are "persons", dumb ass, you were made a corporate entity i.e a "person" when your mother signed your all caps name certificate of "live birth" that they then monetized and made themselves the surety of that bond by copy writing your all caps fiction. You were made surety and collateral against the debt via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March, 1933 and the people lost allodial rights to property. Ever heard of HJR 192? Senate document #43 Senate resolution #62, page 9 paragraph 2??? April 17th, 1933? How it states "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state"......sounds like communism to me, eh?????

You really crack me up when you start bitching that things would be AWESOME under this debt slavery/fiat currency system if everyone making more money THAN you simply gave "da gubermint" more of their fiat currency/means of exchange and always vote "leftard" because if you don't? "You are voting against your own interests". Who in the fuck are you to presume as to know what is best for me? Who the fuck put your ilk in charge of knowing what is best for all? No one did..... so take a fucking hike, ass-wipe. You don't have a fucking clue about anything you post about. 8 days here and you are averaging 60 posts per day? Seriously? Do you have a job or is this your "job" to spew leftard talking points?

LMAOROG, You knuckleheads are good for a laugh at least Bubba

Jon SEZ??????

"You make me laugh because I dont understand what your saying and I dont know how to use punctuation and I dont spell so good but I be smarts because I watch CNN and I vote leftard you Bubbas and I post all day to combat those that know more then me due you here me due you????"""


LMAO! Damn!! It only took you a week and 500 plus posts to become a running joke. I call you out to debate? You run like a cowardly chicken.....hang onto your misconceptions because I doubt you have the I.Q to face reality even if it hit you upside that sloped, neanderthal skull of yours.

(snicker)

Bubba, IF you had ANYTHING to refute my posts beside your right wing nutjob BS about the federal reserve, you would. You haven't

ONE nation to follow your economic BS EVER?

As for me I have 250+ years in the US

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, he fixed things so good that the Republicans have much more power than they did in 2009.

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?

Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*

Too much freedom, eh comrade?

Sure Bubs, it's "freedom" to choose not to pay for services Congress already OK'd?

UNLESS you cut spending, as you GUT revenues like Ronnie/Dubya did ALL you are doing is pushing debt to our kids and grandkids. Why?? Oh right, CONServatives are selfish!

Yes, corporations are free to spend money on speech.

Yes, people can make videos that criticize Hillary.

Even if that freedom makes you cry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, Clinton's Internet Bubble was cool. If only it had gone on another 10 years.

You "believe" that nonsense Bubs, forget Carter's 19.6% of GDP in revenues and Clinton getting US back up there, until Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dumped it to Korean war levels 14.6%

Yes, it's easier to raise those levels during a bubble.

Carter had a bubble? LMAOROG, Hint as soon as the Dems passed the 1993 omnibus bill, receipts went up. Amazing when you tax the rich how well US treasury does!

Carter had a bubble?

Clinton had a bubble.....DERP!

Amazing when you tax the rich how well US treasury does!

Exactly!
Obama's $9.3 trillion in new debt is the proof.

OK, Ankle biter I'm done here, stalk me elsewhere

Don't go away....tell me more about Reagan's 40% Soc Sec tax hike.

Fucking moron.

 

[danielpalos]

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

Yes, it does; the poor still have to "eat and drink". It is about demand and supply not socialism on a national basis; that is why the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

 

[danielpalos]

Sure he fixed them Bubba, even inheriting the policy that created that debt

Yeah, he fixed things so good that the Republicans have much more power than they did in 2009.

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?

Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*

Corporations are "persons", dumb ass, you were made a corporate entity i.e a "person" when your mother signed your all caps name certificate of "live birth" that they then monetized and made themselves the surety of that bond by copy writing your all caps fiction. You were made surety and collateral against the debt via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March, 1933 and the people lost allodial rights to property. Ever heard of HJR 192? Senate document #43 Senate resolution #62, page 9 paragraph 2??? April 17th, 1933? How it states "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state"......sounds like communism to me, eh?????

You really crack me up when you start bitching that things would be AWESOME under this debt slavery/fiat currency system if everyone making more money THAN you simply gave "da gubermint" more of their fiat currency/means of exchange and always vote "leftard" because if you don't? "You are voting against your own interests". Who in the fuck are you to presume as to know what is best for me? Who the fuck put your ilk in charge of knowing what is best for all? No one did..... so take a fucking hike, ass-wipe. You don't have a fucking clue about anything you post about. 8 days here and you are averaging 60 posts per day? Seriously? Do you have a job or is this your "job" to spew leftard talking points?

End the work tax on real Persons; Only artificial Persons should have to work and pay income tax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

Yes, it does; the poor still have to "eat and drink". It is about demand and supply not socialism on a national basis; that is why the right wing, never gets it.

Yes, it does; the poor still have to "eat and drink".

Yes, just as the people you taxed need to eat and drink.

It is about demand and supply

You imagine handouts increase supply, you never show that they do.

that is why the right wing, never gets it.

We get it, that's why we mock your simplistic "first stage thinking".

 

[danielpalos]

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman? Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

Yes, it would. Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

So?

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

Yes, it would. Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".

Incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work is a really bad idea.
It's not a surprise that you like it.

 

[danielpalos]

That is Your red herring. It is irrelevant as a result to this argument. It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy.

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies. the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

Yes, it would. Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".

Incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work is a really bad idea.
It's not a surprise that you like it.

That is Your red herring, right winger; fish with it.

Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare in a manner analogous to this concept:

• If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
  • Aristotle, Book IV, 1291b.34

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

Yes, it would. Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".

Incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work is a really bad idea.
It's not a surprise that you like it.

That is Your red herring, right winger; fish with it.
Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare
in a manner analogous to this concept:

• If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
  • Aristotle, Book IV, 1291b.34

The impact of your "idea", incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work, is not a red herring. It's fact.

Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare

Paying people to sit idle does not fully employ our resources and would lead to less employment, lower GDP.

 

[danielpalos]

That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing?

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN)

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.

Yes, it would. Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".

Incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work is a really bad idea.
It's not a surprise that you like it.

That is Your red herring, right winger; fish with it.
Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare
in a manner analogous to this concept:

• If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
  • Aristotle, Book IV, 1291b.34

The impact of your "idea", incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work, is not a red herring. It's fact.

Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare

Paying people to sit idle does not fully employ our resources and would lead to less employment, lower GDP.

Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric? Explain in devilish detail; how your right wing fantasy would happen, by solving simple poverty in our Republic, on an at-will basis.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?

Sure. It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, capital Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law.

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line. Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?

No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Only the Stupid Keep It Simple

Money turns into scrap paper if it's not backed by production. Economists create a design, a blueprint, a flat drawing of a structure. That makes it easier for their limited intelligence to work with and explain to the suckers who fall for their unearned prestige.