The Rich Are Getting Richer!

[Rshermr]

You still have not responded to the statistics I provided you proving that healthcare without socialized healthcare insurance is 2.5Times as expensive as the average of the rest of the worlds industrialized nations. Just no response, eh, dipshit.

Once again, because you are really, really, slow.... Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" virtually anything you please. This doesn't impress me like it does you, apparently.

2.5 times more expensive, and 2.5 times better quality and availability... that's why socialist rulers and tyrants come to the US for their health care, instead of staying in their own hellholes. You probably will need to update that 2.5 to 2.75 or 3.25 after Jan 2014, when Obamacare kicks in. Everything health care related is increasing in price, because someone has to pay for all the government bureaucrats now. Guess who gets to do that? Here's a clue... it's not the capitalists!

Yes. Of course. The Kaiser organization would want to lie about health care costs. They have a sterling reputation, but you would have us believe that they lie.

Now you, boss, have a lousy reputation. While Kaiser provided a solid study, you simply pulled another statement out of your ass. So, why is it that we should not believe kaiser??? Is it because you say so??

And why should we believe you, who has no evidence and no study. And has a reputation as a liar??

Oh yeah, now I remember. For no reason at all.

You continue to embarrass yourself, boss. Though due to your congenital idiocy, you apparently are unaware.

 

[Boss]

It doesn't matter if you believe me, Rushtey... Americans will realize about a 40% increase in their premium costs for 2014, and no amount of liberal spin will mitigate that reality. You can post all the statistics and studies you please, and it won't make any difference to people who have to pay more money for health care. Of course, your propaganda masters will then be screaming it's all the fault of these Koch Brothers who own and control everything, and not your fault. If only we could just execute those mofos, and confiscate their wealth, we could all live in Utopia and have free everything!

 

[Rshermr]

It doesn't matter if you believe me, Rushtey... Americans will realize about a 40% increase in their premium costs for 2014, and no amount of liberal spin will mitigate that reality. You can post all the statistics and studies you please, and it won't make any difference to people who have to pay more money for health care. Of course, your propaganda masters will then be screaming it's all the fault of these Koch Brothers who own and control everything, and not your fault. If only we could just execute those mofos, and confiscate their wealth, we could all live in Utopia and have free everything!

You do have some interesting ideas. Stupid, but interesting.
We will all worry a great deal nights about your forecast of a 40% increase in hc costs in 2014. Personally, I am going to go with the cbo estimates, which are nothing at all like yours. But, you are such a well respected and proven forecaster of economic events, I know everyone is really, really worried.
Now, here is the thing, though, dipshit. It is your opinion. And you must have noticed how everyone respects your opinion. But then, you do have ed in your camp.....

 

[Boss]

It doesn't matter if you believe me, Rushtey... Americans will realize about a 40% increase in their premium costs for 2014, and no amount of liberal spin will mitigate that reality. You can post all the statistics and studies you please, and it won't make any difference to people who have to pay more money for health care. Of course, your propaganda masters will then be screaming it's all the fault of these Koch Brothers who own and control everything, and not your fault. If only we could just execute those mofos, and confiscate their wealth, we could all live in Utopia and have free everything!

You do have some interesting ideas. Stupid, but interesting.
We will all worry a great deal nights about your forecast of a 40% increase in hc costs in 2014. Personally, I am going to go with the cbo estimates, which are nothing at all like yours. But, you are such a well respected and proven forecaster of economic events, I know everyone is really, really worried.
Now, here is the thing, though, dipshit. It is your opinion. And you must have noticed how everyone respects your opinion. But then, you do have ed in your camp.....

Well, you see, the problem with the CBO is, it does not predict what capitalists will do, what markets will bear, what the ultimate results of policies will be. It simply takes the numbers given to them by Congress, and determines a cost analysis. This assumes we live in a vacuum, where everything always remains static. The reality is, insurance companies who must comply with the mandates, have to pass the cost along to consumers in the form of increased premiums. They have already announced to their clients, there will be an increase in premiums for 2014, and the average is around 40% at this time. Now that number can also change, it may increase another 10~20% over the course of the next 12 months, once things settle in and they see who is paying what, etc.

What the CBO estimated, is how much the program will cost the taxpayer, not the customers of insurance companies. The CBO doesn't have any means or ability to determine what private companies will charge for their goods and services, so I don't know what in the fuck you're talking about here. But even the cost to the taxpayers, as estimated by the CBO, is not actually true. This is based, again, on the numbers and data submitted by Congress, and in this case, includes about $600 billion from Medicare, which has yet to be officially authorized by Congress. You see, it was a political shell game that was played with the funding, so as to obtain a glorious report from the CBO, where clowns like you could run around waving it in the air, proclaiming this monstrosity would "help balance the budget" and all kinds of other bullshit that just isn't true.

 

[Rshermr]

It doesn't matter if you believe me, Rushtey... Americans will realize about a 40% increase in their premium costs for 2014, and no amount of liberal spin will mitigate that reality. You can post all the statistics and studies you please, and it won't make any difference to people who have to pay more money for health care. Of course, your propaganda masters will then be screaming it's all the fault of these Koch Brothers who own and control everything, and not your fault. If only we could just execute those mofos, and confiscate their wealth, we could all live in Utopia and have free everything!

You do have some interesting ideas. Stupid, but interesting.
We will all worry a great deal nights about your forecast of a 40% increase in hc costs in 2014. Personally, I am going to go with the cbo estimates, which are nothing at all like yours. But, you are such a well respected and proven forecaster of economic events, I know everyone is really, really worried.
Now, here is the thing, though, dipshit. It is your opinion. And you must have noticed how everyone respects your opinion. But then, you do have ed in your camp.....

Well, you see, the problem with the CBO is, it does not predict what capitalists will do, what markets will bear, what the ultimate results of policies will be. It simply takes the numbers given to them by Congress, and determines a cost analysis. This assumes we live in a vacuum, where everything always remains static. The reality is, insurance companies who must comply with the mandates, have to pass the cost along to consumers in the form of increased premiums. They have already announced to their clients, there will be an increase in premiums for 2014, and the average is around 40% at this time. Now that number can also change, it may increase another 10~20% over the course of the next 12 months, once things settle in and they see who is paying what, etc.

What the CBO estimated, is how much the program will cost the taxpayer, not the customers of insurance companies. The CBO doesn't have any means or ability to determine what private companies will charge for their goods and services, so I don't know what in the fuck you're talking about here. But even the cost to the taxpayers, as estimated by the CBO, is not actually true. This is based, again, on the numbers and data submitted by Congress, and in this case, includes about $600 billion from Medicare, which has yet to be officially authorized by Congress. You see, it was a political shell game that was played with the funding, so as to obtain a glorious report from the CBO, where clowns like you could run around waving it in the air, proclaiming this monstrosity would "help balance the budget" and all kinds of other bullshit that just isn't true.

Sure, boss. Sure. As usual, every thing you just stated is bs. Normal for you. And, that cbo is just a bunch of economists tasked with doing what you would have us believe you are more capable of doing. I think you may get something like 1% of the electorate going with your drivel. And that is just the sympathy vote.

You are such a comedian. Stupid, but funny.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yes, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking. Not because the middle class is getting poorer, but because they are becoming part of the new rich. Like me, people just don't want to settle for middle class. I'm too lazy to make the graphs myself, so I'll just steal this particular one.

Census data is here.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0696.pdf

 

[Boss]

Sure, boss. Sure. As usual, every thing you just stated is bs. Normal for you. And, that cbo is just a bunch of economists tasked with doing what you would have us believe you are more capable of doing. I think you may get something like 1% of the electorate going with your drivel. And that is just the sympathy vote.

You are such a comedian. Stupid, but funny.

The CBO is a federal agency tasked with evaluating legislative proposals submitted by congress, to determine cost analysis and feasibility. They may have members who hold economic backgrounds, or they may simply be government officials, accountants, or budget analysts. They are simply not independent economists, for the most part, and certainly are not afforded the ability to interject their opinions from an 'economist' standpoint on anything.

They are limited to the data they are submitted by Congress. If Congress tells them they plan to pay for Obamacare with $600 billion from Medicare, they aren't allowed to evaluate whether that will ever actually happen through legislation, they have to assume that Congress has given them accurate information. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were very careful to make sure that they presented the CBO with enough trumped up information, so as to obtain a positive CBO score on their bill. Since then, morons like you have been parading this around like it's the Holy Grail. It means absolutely NOTHING!

 

[Boss]

Yes, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking. Not because the middle class is getting poorer, but because they are becoming part of the new rich. Like me, people just don't want to settle for middle class. I'm too lazy to make the graphs myself, so I'll just steal this particular one.

Census data is here.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0696.pdf

Excellent post, Tania! Well done!

It should also be pointed out, that ONLY in a free market capitalist society, is this kind of thing even possible. In socialist countries, there is very limited upward mobility, people remain in whatever economic class they are in, without the opportunity to gain wealth.

We have to ask ourselves, why are the poor remaining poor? Certainly it's not because we haven't had enough social programs to help them, because we have spent about $10 trillion over the past 40 years, in social programs alone, not to mention the assorted tax breaks and incentives. Yet, we have relatively the same percentage of people below the poverty level in America, so these programs have simply failed to do what they intended.

I believe the main problem is lack of motivation and ambition. I say this because we see all kinds of examples where the poorest of the poor, have overcome the poverty they were born into, to become wealthy. The difference between an Oprah Winfrey, who was born in a poor Mississippi slum, and victim of child abuse, and someone who is still living in that same slum, is motivation to succeed. This can not be fixed by pouring more money into social programs, if anything, that simply enables the poor to remain complacent and demotivated. It's just easier to tell yourself that you are a victim and be dependent on welfare, than to get up off your ass and make something happen for yourself. But Democrats, in particular, have encouraged this mentality, because they rely on the votes.

 

[Rshermr]

Sure, boss. Sure. As usual, every thing you just stated is bs. Normal for you. And, that cbo is just a bunch of economists tasked with doing what you would have us believe you are more capable of doing. I think you may get something like 1% of the electorate going with your drivel. And that is just the sympathy vote.

You are such a comedian. Stupid, but funny.

The CBO is a federal agency tasked with evaluating legislative proposals submitted by congress, to determine cost analysis and feasibility. They may have members who hold economic backgrounds, or they may simply be government officials, accountants, or budget analysts. They are simply not independent economists, for the most part, and certainly are not afforded the ability to interject their opinions from an 'economist' standpoint on anything.

They are limited to the data they are submitted by Congress. If Congress tells them they plan to pay for Obamacare with $600 billion from Medicare, they aren't allowed to evaluate whether that will ever actually happen through legislation, they have to assume that Congress has given them accurate information. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were very careful to make sure that they presented the CBO with enough trumped up information, so as to obtain a positive CBO score on their bill. Since then, morons like you have been parading this around like it's the Holy Grail. It means absolutely NOTHING!

Sorry, you are, from a technical standpoint, full of shit. Sorry about that. But your assessment of what the cbo can and can not do has nothing at all with what you would like to believe. Just another of your bs statements. With, can you believe it, NO PROOF. You can go find the charter of the cbo, which would prove you are wrong. But then, what is new.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking. Not because the middle class is getting poorer, but because they are becoming part of the new rich. Like me, people just don't want to settle for middle class. I'm too lazy to make the graphs myself, so I'll just steal this particular one.

Census data is here.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0696.pdf

Excellent post, Tania! Well done!

It should also be pointed out, that ONLY in a free market capitalist society, is this kind of thing even possible. In socialist countries, there is very limited upward mobility, people remain in whatever economic class they are in, without the opportunity to gain wealth.

We have to ask ourselves, why are the poor remaining poor? Certainly it's not because we haven't had enough social programs to help them, because we have spent about $10 trillion over the past 40 years, in social programs alone, not to mention the assorted tax breaks and incentives. Yet, we have relatively the same percentage of people below the poverty level in America, so these programs have simply failed to do what they intended.

I believe the main problem is lack of motivation and ambition. I say this because we see all kinds of examples where the poorest of the poor, have overcome the poverty they were born into, to become wealthy. The difference between an Oprah Winfrey, who was born in a poor Mississippi slum, and victim of child abuse, and someone who is still living in that same slum, is motivation to succeed. This can not be fixed by pouring more money into social programs, if anything, that simply enables the poor to remain complacent and demotivated. It's just easier to tell yourself that you are a victim and be dependent on welfare, than to get up off your ass and make something happen for yourself. But Democrats, in particular, have encouraged this mentality, because they rely on the votes.

Sorry. The income level of the middle class over the past 10 years has decreased. The income level of the upper income class has increased.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- It's official. The first decade of the 21st century will go down in the history books as a step back for the American middle class.
Last week, the government made gloomy headlines when it released the latest census report showing the poverty rate rose to a 17-year high. A whopping 46.2 million people (or 15.1% of the U.S. population) live in poverty and 49.9 million live without health insurance.

The data is all over the web. Hard to miss. To say that the income level of the middle class has not decreased is rubbish.

But the data also gave the first glimpse of what happened to middle-class incomes in the first decade of the millennium. While the earnings of middle-income Americans have barely budged since the mid 1970s, the new data showed that from 2000 to 2010, they actually regressed.
For American households in the middle of the pay scale, income fell to $49,445 last year, when adjusted for inflation, a level not seen since 1996.

And over the 10-year period, their income is down 7%.
"Economists talk about the lost decade in Japan. Well, with these 2010 data, we can confirm the lost decade for the American middle class," said Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy
Middle-class income fell in the last decade - Sep. 21, 2011

 

[Boss]

Sure, boss. Sure. As usual, every thing you just stated is bs. Normal for you. And, that cbo is just a bunch of economists tasked with doing what you would have us believe you are more capable of doing. I think you may get something like 1% of the electorate going with your drivel. And that is just the sympathy vote.

You are such a comedian. Stupid, but funny.

The CBO is a federal agency tasked with evaluating legislative proposals submitted by congress, to determine cost analysis and feasibility. They may have members who hold economic backgrounds, or they may simply be government officials, accountants, or budget analysts. They are simply not independent economists, for the most part, and certainly are not afforded the ability to interject their opinions from an 'economist' standpoint on anything.

They are limited to the data they are submitted by Congress. If Congress tells them they plan to pay for Obamacare with $600 billion from Medicare, they aren't allowed to evaluate whether that will ever actually happen through legislation, they have to assume that Congress has given them accurate information. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were very careful to make sure that they presented the CBO with enough trumped up information, so as to obtain a positive CBO score on their bill. Since then, morons like you have been parading this around like it's the Holy Grail. It means absolutely NOTHING!

Sorry, you are, from a technical standpoint, full of shit. Sorry about that. But your assessment of what the cbo can and can not do has nothing at all with what you would like to believe. Just another of your bs statements. With, can you believe it, NO PROOF. You can go find the charter of the cbo, which would prove you are wrong. But then, what is new.

The charter of the CBO? It's a federal agency, founded by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and operates under specific provisions of that act, it doesn't have a "charter" like an independent organization. What in the fuck are you talking about, moron? Do you even know?

What I stated was the absolute truth, and if you want to contend it's not the truth, it is up to you to provide evidence that it is not true. This would include more than your ignorant opinion that it's not true. This is just more myopic nit-picky diversion on your part. Instead of debating the issues, you like to derail the topic and focus on some trivial aspect of what is said, so as to not be totally embarrassed by your complete lack of knowledge. I keep calling you out for it, but you just keep right on doing the same thing over and over. Apparently, you are mildly retarded. That's the only conclusion I can come up with to explain your behavior here.

Again, the CBO is simply not given the authority to interject their economic opinions on various aspects of legislation. They merely crunch the numbers given to them, to determine whether something is feasible, based on the information they are given. They also do not have the ability to determine how capitalist producers of goods and services are going to react to various legislation or regulation. Now, if you have some evidence that CBO members are specially blessed with some psychic ability to see into the future and predict such things, please present that. Otherwise, you need to just shut your ignorant yapper and move on to your next distraction.

 

[Boss]

Sorry. The income level of the middle class over the past 10 years has decreased.

Yes, but they aren't joining the poor, that number is relatively the same. As Tania illustrated with the graph from the Census, the middle class are becoming the new rich. Now, I suppose you could claim that you have a better insight on this than the Census Bureau, but I don't believe you do. In fact, I don't believe you have any insight whatsoever, that hasn't been given to you by a blog somewhere.... so maybe you need to run off over to one of your blogs and post the graph, so they can tell you how to formulate an argument against it? Right now, you are floundering.

 

[Rshermr]

The CBO is a federal agency tasked with evaluating legislative proposals submitted by congress, to determine cost analysis and feasibility. They may have members who hold economic backgrounds, or they may simply be government officials, accountants, or budget analysts. They are simply not independent economists, for the most part, and certainly are not afforded the ability to interject their opinions from an 'economist' standpoint on anything.

They are limited to the data they are submitted by Congress. If Congress tells them they plan to pay for Obamacare with $600 billion from Medicare, they aren't allowed to evaluate whether that will ever actually happen through legislation, they have to assume that Congress has given them accurate information. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were very careful to make sure that they presented the CBO with enough trumped up information, so as to obtain a positive CBO score on their bill. Since then, morons like you have been parading this around like it's the Holy Grail. It means absolutely NOTHING!

Sorry, you are, from a technical standpoint, full of shit. Sorry about that. But your assessment of what the cbo can and can not do has nothing at all with what you would like to believe. Just another of your bs statements. With, can you believe it, NO PROOF. You can go find the charter of the cbo, which would prove you are wrong. But then, what is new.

The charter of the CBO? It's a federal agency, founded by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and operates under specific provisions of that act, it doesn't have a "charter" like an independent organization. What in the fuck are you talking about, moron? Do you even know?

What I stated was the absolute truth, and if you want to contend it's not the truth, it is up to you to provide evidence that it is not true. This would include more than your ignorant opinion that it's not true. This is just more myopic nit-picky diversion on your part. Instead of debating the issues, you like to derail the topic and focus on some trivial aspect of what is said, so as to not be totally embarrassed by your complete lack of knowledge. I keep calling you out for it, but you just keep right on doing the same thing over and over. Apparently, you are mildly retarded. That's the only conclusion I can come up with to explain your behavior here.

Again, the CBO is simply not given the authority to interject their economic opinions on various aspects of legislation. They merely crunch the numbers given to them, to determine whether something is feasible, based on the information they are given. They also do not have the ability to determine how capitalist producers of goods and services are going to react to various legislation or regulation. Now, if you have some evidence that CBO members are specially blessed with some psychic ability to see into the future and predict such things, please present that. Otherwise, you need to just shut your ignorant yapper and move on to your next distraction.

Wow, boss. You can actually use google to find when the cbo was formed, and by what. Now, what I meant was not a formal charter, dipshit, but what they are set up to do. What they are told to do and what they are not allowed to do. Jesus.

And, yes they can make economic assessments. They are NOT limited by data that they are given. Dipshit. And yes indeed, they go anywhere they feel they need to go to get their data. Dipshit. Nice grab of drivel from a far right wing con site. I have seen it before. Tools like you typically come up with this ignorant assessment of the cbo. And it has NO BASIS IN REALITY.

So, do I need to find their duties and limitations, dipshit. Are you completely incapable??? Of course you are. HERE:
CBO | our transparency and objectivity

Political committees can request studies. But in NO WAY can they restrict the data the cbo uses to come to projections and descriptions of conditions.

Only a con would try to color the cbo in this way. Jesus, you are a clown.

 

[Rshermr]

Sorry. The income level of the middle class over the past 10 years has decreased.

Yes, but they aren't joining the poor, that number is relatively the same. As Tania illustrated with the graph from the Census, the middle class are becoming the new rich. Now, I suppose you could claim that you have a better insight on this than the Census Bureau, but I don't believe you do. In fact, I don't believe you have any insight whatsoever, that hasn't been given to you by a blog somewhere.... so maybe you need to run off over to one of your blogs and post the graph, so they can tell you how to formulate an argument against it? Right now, you are floundering.

Uh, dipshit, my document did not come from a blog. Now, the graph that tanya provided came from the Carpe Diem Blog. Not the census bureau as you say. They do use census data, but the graphs are their own. Maybe that is your mental problem. I did not use a blog as a sours, tanya did use a blog as a sourse. Though, me boy, a blog in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. dipshit.
You will find info on the carpe diem blog at aei. It is a aei product. That is, me poor ignorant con tool, the american enterprise organization. A far right wing web site. Another of those sites supported heavily by the koch brothers. Now, having integrity, I do not use a graph from, say, moveon.org. But con tools do use graphs from blogs of right wing sites like aei. See the problem, dipshit?

You see, you can take data and do what you want with it. What is important is not how many people over a certain level make some amount of money. What is important, me poor economically ignorant clown, is the buying power of a group of people (say the middle class) over a period of time. Follow my link and see what CNN Money has to say. There are graphs there, based on actual census data, that say something quite different. As do pretty much every available study. Or, just stay in the bat shit crazy con web sites, or the data provided by other cons from such sites. And, while you are at it, go find out what a blog is. Dipshit.

 

[Auteur]

Taxes ARE theft, you don't have the option to not pay them. What if I came to your house with a gun, and said.. "I need $3,000 from you, so I can refurbish your lawn, I noticed it was looking bad and this could drive down property values." Fearful of my gun, you give me the $3,000... a few days later, I come by and throw a few grass seeds out. Is that theft? You did gain a benefit, I did do what I said, but you didn't have any choice but to comply, I had a gun.

Most tax collectors don't carry guns (well, the USA might be an exception here- but that's another thread). If you live in Haiti or Zimbabwe, you might end up with seeds, but in any major advanced country, what you will get for your money is police, fire, ambulance protection, customs and border control, hospitals, schools, medical research, environmental protection, banking and financial regulation (well, sort of..), and a host of other services. Try handing all these out to the "free market", and see how much you will be paying, after profits and $30M CEO salaries have been costed in.

What portion of a nation's wealth an individual ends up with is as much a political and philosophical issue as it is an economic one. Unless one has lived their life on a desert island, then all they are today is an amalgam of the benefits they have received from society (education, medical care, use of roads, airports, and other infrastructure, advantages from previous research and development, and other benefits, the vast majority- even in the uber-right USA- publically funded), and their own efforts. Furthermore, even for the tenacious, the value of what they produce is also up for debate. Some of the most wealthy today "earned" their money in the financial sector, charging huge fees for dubious ventures, creating underhanded schemes such as sub-prime mortgages, or embezzling $30M salaries while crashing their companies.

Pragcap.com is a BLOG. Now, notice I didn't say it was a Marxist propagandist blog, but it is still a blog. This means it is not a credible source of information, it is someone's opinion. It may or may not be an opinion I agree with. That's fine, but it's really no different than my opinion or your opinion posted here. The most interesting thing at the link you posted, comes at the very end:

For details on how QE works, what its impact is and why the policy fails to generate positive economic effects please refer to my archived research.

So it sounds like, his opinion dovetails with my own.

If you had read a little further, Mr Boss, you would have seen that this article explores the issue from different viewpoints, and makes no simplistic black and white statements. It is a blog, but one you are free to compare to other informed opinion, and make rational decisions as to validity. This is called critical thinking, a habit not often seen on these pages.

QE is the printing of currency with no backing, or as Williams calls it, Counterfeiting. Now we can do all kinds of gyrations to justify it and pretend that it's something else, but it's no different than if you and I set up printing presses in our basement and started printing currency for ourselves. What would happen if everyone did that? Soon, currency would have literally no value at all. It would be great at the start, because we'd have all this extra money, and be able to afford things we never could have afforded otherwise. If we were able to discipline ourselves and only print a little money each month, it may not affect the value of the dollar very much, but if everyone were doing it, eventually it couldn't help but to devalue the dollar. I mean, instead of giving us free health care, why couldn't Obama just give us free money printing presses, so we can print out the amount of money we need to live comfortably each month? Or, since we have a $15 trillion debt, why not just print up $15 trillion dollars and pay it off? I didn't read Collen Roche's opinion on why QE fails to generate positive economic effects, but I bet most of it, I already understand.

There are economists here that have explained these things to you, so I don't know what else might have an impact on you, if you still don't get it. Banks, and governments, "create" money all the time, and inflation and/devaluation of currency are not necessarily an consequence of this. This is certainly not the case today. Inflation is well within its modest target range, and the dollar is floating along quite well, and not dropping in relation to other currencies. These events should give you pause for thought.

 

[Boss]

Now, what I meant was not a formal charter, dipshit, but what they are set up to do. What they are told to do and what they are not allowed to do.

Maybe you should have said it differently, dipshit?

Now, the graph that tanya provided came from the Carpe Diem Blog. Not the census bureau as you say. They do use census data, but the graphs are their own.

I am laughing my ass off at you. The graph is made from data coming from the census. You posted an opinion piece from CNN, which confirms exactly what the graph says. It's just that your spin is contradictory to the census data, as the graph clearly shows. ...Oooo, the middle class is shrinking! Yeah, they're getting richer! LMAO

 

[Boss]

Most tax collectors don't carry guns

Try not paying your taxes and see who shows up with a gun.

If you live in Haiti or Zimbabwe, you might end up with seeds, but in any major advanced country, what you will get for your money is police, fire, ambulance protection, customs and border control, hospitals, schools, medical research, environmental protection, banking and financial regulation (well, sort of..), and a host of other services.

So the only difference in my analogy and actual reality, is the amount of things the thieves are going to "do for you?" I could have expounded more in my analogy, that wouldn't be a problem. The point is, you don't have a choice, they have the guns, you have to comply. It doesn't matter if you don't want their services, or if you'd prefer to handle those things on your own, they have the guns, you have to comply. That is theft. The fact that some people agree they should steal your money, doesn't make it NOT theft.

There are economists here that have explained these things to you, so I don't know what else might have an impact on you, if you still don't get it.

Walter E. Williams is also an economist, and he has a completely different viewpoint and explained it to you. I never said I didn't get it, I totally get it. I disagree with it!

Banks, and governments, "create" money all the time...

No they don't. The government can print currency, but that isn't creating anything except devaluation of the dollar. Banks can loan out money that doesn't actually exist, because they have the blessing and backing of the US government.

 

[Kimura]

US productivity, corporate profits, and margins are at all time high, but wages have been stagnant. Stagnant wages affect consumer spending which obviously has a negative effect on the economy. Increased productivity and stagnant wages has been the economic reality for the last three decades.

 

[Rshermr]

Now, what I meant was not a formal charter, dipshit, but what they are set up to do. What they are told to do and what they are not allowed to do.

Maybe you should have said it differently, dipshit?

Now, the graph that tanya provided came from the Carpe Diem Blog. Not the census bureau as you say. They do use census data, but the graphs are their own.

I am laughing my ass off at you. The graph is made from data coming from the census. You posted an opinion piece from CNN, which confirms exactly what the graph says. It's just that your spin is contradictory to the census data, as the graph clearly shows. ...Oooo, the middle class is shrinking! Yeah, they're getting richer! LMAO

Just one of those things. Stupid people do laugh a lot. So, you think that aei is impartial, but a graph based on census numbers by cnn money is a partial thing. You are a clown.

 

[Boss]

US productivity, corporate profits, and margins are at all time high, but wages have been stagnant. Stagnant wages affect consumer spending which obviously has a negative effect on the economy. Increased productivity and stagnant wages has been the economic reality for the last three decades.

The problem is, you aren't really defining what "productivity" means or how it is measured. It merely appears as a red line on a graph, juxtaposed with average wages. One HUGE thing that has completely changed since 1995, is the introduction of computers. What may have once taken a group of people weeks to do, can now be done by one person in a few hours or less.

So what you would have to do, to make your red line concurrent with the average wage line, is demand capitalists pay employees for all the gained productivity created by computers, which he also had to invest in. You will notice, the sharp downturn in average wages, oh, about the time Marxist Socialists took over government and started telling capitalists what they had to do for full-time employees.