Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Very simply, that claims I hear around here that everyone's self made and all people have the same opportunity, are bullshit. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunity; Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Yes, there's unlimited opportunity in theory, and some people do make huge leaps and bounds, others fall hard from grace. But moreso than intelligence, drive, virtue, etc; Birthright is the #1 indicator in determining where you'll wind up.
This is a situation that has gotten worse in this country in the last 30 years, not better.
And I don't blame her for showing me to be wrong, I thank her for that. I hate being wrong and I'm always willing to learn. What I blame her for, is having an incredibly abrasive personality. She reminds me of fucking Ann Coulter.
No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.
If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?
Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.
Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.
Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.
OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.
And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.
Get bent. ****.
There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
Could it be that the folks that have the wealth did things such as working hard to acquire the weath, educating themselves and investing wisely and the folks that do not have any wealth have continued to do the things that made them not wealthy?
An economy based on horse and buggy manufacturing once went bad and the blue collar mentality of the 1940s has also gone bad.
China has more college honor students in math, IT and engineering than we have COLLEGE STUDENTS.
Well, to be fair they do outnumber us in people about 4:1. Do you have a link to the study your referring to? I'm curious.
There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
No, wealth does NOT beget wealth.
capital gains?
stocks and other investments?
massive tax breaks from the Republicans designed to shift the burden onto the middle class?
Don't exist, right?
If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top.
The vast majority who start out poor end up rich?
Are you insane?
There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
Could you possibly be more economically illiterate?
The very wealthy do not hide their wealth in coffee cans buried in the backyard.
They invest it in things intended to increase their wealth
There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
The fairness of a progressive tax recognizes inequalities of wealth distribution in an economic structure like ours and seeks to rectify some of the dangers to the society that kind of system poses.
No, wealth does NOT beget wealth. Lots of people inherit money from their parents and blow it all. EDUCATION begets wealth. If you want your kids to be wealthy and successful, it's a lot more important to bequeath to them an appreciation for learning and hard work than a bundle of cash.
If birthright is such a big deal, then explain to me why the vast majority of people who start out in the lowest quintile of income end up near the top. Or did you miss that part?
Yes, I'm afraid I missed that part. You'll be hard pressed to prove that one.
Oh, and as for abrasive, how abrasive do you think it is for you to come in here, spouting class envy vitriol based on blatantly false assertions as though you're some sort of economic expert? And how much courtesy do you think you deserve in being told that you're making a jackass out of yourself? I ain't your momma, son. If you want to debate with the grownups, I suggest you butch up and stop whining about how mean people are to you when you step on your johnson.
Oh, and next time you want to call me a dirty name, grow a pair of cojones and just say it. Don't be a hypocritical little punk and try to get the bennies of calling me a "****" while also trying to claim the bennies of being too nice to say it. Piss or get off the pot. It's not like after your little display of ignorance, anyone's going to respect your opinion enough to care, anyway.
OK, you're a ****. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.
And as I've shown, it's not "Blatantly false." I said it means almost everything, you said it means almost nothing. The truth is it means a lot, but not as much as I thought. Big fucking deal. It's still probably the single best predictive statistic in determining someones future income. I've admitted the mobility was higher than I thought, but my original assertion is still closer to the truth than the noise you're spouting.
Get bent. ****.
When all else fails resort to insults. There isn't a day that goes by when a liberal does not expose them self as an ideological empty can.
She ripped your weak assed argument to shreds and you fire back with "****"...
Brilliant. It is my sincere hope that you slip and fall ass backwards onto a pile of thumbtacks.
There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
Could you possibly be more economically illiterate?
The very wealthy do not hide their wealth in coffee cans buried in the backyard.
Correct. They hide it in the Caymans.
They invest it in things intended to increase their wealth
But. Cessy said wealth doesn't beget wealth...
And you conclude that wealth is much better served in the hands of politicians who have the power to spend irresponsively, yes?There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
They also speculate, usually with other people's money and always with a tax bias for debt rather than equity investment, which is largely responsible for loading down the US economy with debt.There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.
Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.
[...]
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
Could you possibly be more economically illiterate?
The very wealthy do not hide their wealth in coffee cans buried in the backyard.
They invest it in things intended to increase their wealth - which often require jobs to be performed in that effort. Without the velocity of their investments, economic growth and job creation would be much lower.
They also speculate, usually with other people's money and always with a tax bias for debt rather than equity investment, which is largely responsible for loading down the US economy with debt.There is ample evidence today that those who hold in their possession a major portion of this Nation's wealth (its principal resource), and are in effect hoarding it, are not "dealing" with it in a manner which is essential to our economic health, therefore our national security.
I need to keep repeating the fact that America's most prosperous and economically stable period occurred during the years when the progressive tax rate capped at 91%. Yes it affected mainly the rich, but they remained rich, just not super-rich. Eventually they managed to get a "conservative" puppet elected, Ronald Reagan, who commenced to remove the safeguards put in place to maintain our economic health.
Reagan's destructive example was followed by Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2. And here we are.
Still we have citizens who insist that government should not do what needs to be done to ensure the economic stability of the Nation.
Could you possibly be more economically illiterate?
The very wealthy do not hide their wealth in coffee cans buried in the backyard.
They invest it in things intended to increase their wealth - which often require jobs to be performed in that effort. Without the velocity of their investments, economic growth and job creation would be much lower.
This also encourages corporate raiding with junk bonds which adds interest to the cost of doing business.
As for job gains:
"The argument is made that 'The rich create jobs.'
"After all, somebody has to build the yachts.
"What is missing is the more general principle: Wealth and income inequality destroy job creation.
"This is because the wealthy soon reach a limit on how much they can consume.
"They spend their money buying financial securities mainly bonds, which end up indebting the economy. And the debt overhead is what is pushing todays economy into deepening depression."
Michael Hudson
George.....just stop it.Is it fair that Wes, the corners and even defensive ends compete on a level playing field with impartial officials and the rest of us don't?
one person's method of earning a living at great risk to the investor
Gee I must be out of my league due to your extensive knowledge of markets and commodities trading. You are certainly correct. No one in the markets uses their own money They take it from the poor and middle class. In fact I saw a guy leaving my bank right after he withdrew a few thousand form my account to go bet on the price of gold.one person's method of earning a living at great risk to the investor
Risk? Pshaw. All they need to do is hold a financial gun to the federal head. There ain't no steenkin' risk in this game.
"Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist.They also speculate, usually with other people's money and always with a tax bias for debt rather than equity investment, which is largely responsible for loading down the US economy with debt.Could you possibly be more economically illiterate?
The very wealthy do not hide their wealth in coffee cans buried in the backyard.
They invest it in things intended to increase their wealth - which often require jobs to be performed in that effort. Without the velocity of their investments, economic growth and job creation would be much lower.
This also encourages corporate raiding with junk bonds which adds interest to the cost of doing business.
As for job gains:
"The argument is made that 'The rich create jobs.'
"After all, somebody has to build the yachts.
"What is missing is the more general principle: Wealth and income inequality destroy job creation.
"This is because the wealthy soon reach a limit on how much they can consume.
"They spend their money buying financial securities mainly bonds, which end up indebting the economy. And the debt overhead is what is pushing todays economy into deepening depression."
Michael Hudson
SO Michael Hudson, blogger for some anti-capitalist website ralphs up some nonsense about speculation( one person's method of earning a living at great risk to the investor) and you take the bait.
Wonderful.
Please.
Yes, let's grab up all that money and let the government have it.
Surely politicians are the greatest stewards of the people's money.
