forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#misc


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
771,296 comments by 11,157 registered users, 5 online now: FortWayne, Goran_K, justme, me123, Roidy
new post
« prev   misc   next »

-3

A zillionaire's solution

By joeyjojojunior following x   2017 Oct 11, 6:47am 586 views   109 comments   watch   quote     share  

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/11/republican-tax-cut-for-rich-economy-215696
"The Republican tax plan is a scam—a massive and destructive financial giveaway masquerading as pro-growth tax reform. Which is why our first response must be to demand not one penny of tax cuts for big corporations and rich guys like me. In fact, if I were Benevolent Dictator, I would substantially raise taxes on myself and my wealthy friends. Why? It is the only way to sustainably grow the economy, boost productivity, increase business opportunities and create more and better jobs."

Someone who gets it. This guy wants to help the middle class. Trump just wants to help himself and his family. Period.

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 109     Next »     Last »

41 CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 12, 8:19pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
Strategist says
No Joey, if that was the case we would not have deficits when democrat Presidents are in power.


You have absolutely no idea how money is spent.

So what credit do you give Bill Clinton for running a budget surplus? Isn't he a Democrat?


Weren't you calling pat.net posters idiots for attributing budgets to presidents rather than Congress a few weeks back?

Bill Clinton had a republican congress.

So which is it? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

The most fiscally responsible government is a gridlocked government.
42 iwog   2017 Oct 12, 8:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Gosh Iwog, Carter screwed up in almost everything, and I only say almost everything because he must have got something right. I like the guy, and I would love to have him as a neighbor.
He screwed up with everything to do with the:
Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc
Foreign policy, dumping the Shah of Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to rule Iran. Gosh, he even ended up destroying Iran, a country with a future.
What good was Carter for the USA, and for the world?


See this is the problem I have with your worms eye view of history.

It's not that Carter was an awful president, it's that awful things (in your opinion) happened while he was president. Your philosophy assigns blame for hurricanes and fires and earthquakes to the president which is ridiculous.

Don't believe me? How the fuck do you construct a sentence like "Carter let the Shah of Iran get dumped and allowed the Ayatollah to rule" (by armed revolt outside Carter's ability to do anything but he was president) without even once thinking about how that was his fault?
43 iwog   2017 Oct 12, 8:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
CBOEtrader says
Weren't you calling pat.net posters idiots for attributing budgets to presidents rather than Congress a few weeks back?


Yup. I'm accepting the assumptions maintained by the people who I'm speaking with temporarily to demonstrate how they are hypocrites. I'm just taking a shortcut and not explicitly explaining it because it's not necessary unless someone comes along and decides the argument means fuck -all and you're just going to talk about the people instead because you're a teenage tumblr princess.

This is why you're not qualified to vote.
44 Strategist   2017 Oct 12, 8:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
Strategist says
Gosh Iwog, Carter screwed up in almost everything, and I only say almost everything because he must have got something right. I like the guy, and I would love to have him as a neighbor.
He screwed up with everything to do with the:
Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc
Foreign policy, dumping the Shah of Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to rule Iran. Gosh, he even ended up destroying Iran, a country with a future.
What good was Carter for the USA, and for the world?


See this is the problem I have with your worms eye view of history.

It's not that Carter was an awful president, it's that awful things (in your opinion) happened while he was president. Your philosophy assigns blame for hurricanes and fires and earthquakes to the president which is ridiculous.


Ha ha ha. So when a democrat is President, bad things just happen. When a Republican is President, he causes the bad things to happen.
It's called bias. Shame on you, Iwog.
45 iwog   2017 Oct 12, 8:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Strategist says
Ha ha ha. So when a democrat is President, bad things just happen. When a Republican is President, he causes the bad things to happen.
It's called bias. Shame on you, Iwog.


Nope and you failed miserably.

YOU BELIEVE (not I) that a president is responsible for anything that happens under his watch. You believe it like a religion. With this viewpoint, you don't have the luxury of excusing Bush for Katrina or Trump for the California fires. You WANT this luxury but you don't deserve it.

In my universe where everything can be described in greater detail than "DUH......HE WAS PREZIDENT!" the responsibility may or may not lie with actions taken by POTUS. Not in yours though. I think we've thoroughly established that fact.

Carter is no more responsible for the Shaw of fucking Iran than Trump is responsible for North Korea firing missiles over Japan. That's my view but again it's not yours. You must hold Trump responsible if you hold Carter responsible.

You wont. You're a hypocrite.
46 FortWayne   2017 Oct 12, 9:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
I think their tax proposal is good, less money government takes, more money stays in private sector. Government should spend less, and tax less. Solution is simple, it's just not easy.
47 me123   2017 Oct 12, 9:25pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
CBOEtrader says
Weren't you calling pat.net posters idiots for attributing budgets to presidents rather than Congress a few weeks back?

Bill Clinton had a republican congress.

So which is it? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?


Now that's a epic Iwog smackdown if I ever saw one!!
48 me123   2017 Oct 12, 9:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Strategist says
So when a democrat is President, bad things just happen. When a Republican is President, he causes the bad things to happen.
It's called bias. Shame on you, Iwog.


That boy's TDS has hit "parabolic" heights and gone exponential, it's almost at "wet bulb" temperatures!
49 iwog   2017 Oct 12, 10:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
FortWayne says
I think their tax proposal is good, less money government takes, more money stays in private sector. Government should spend less, and tax less. Solution is simple, it's just not easy.


I already answered this. You aren't allowed to question your tax bill while simultaneously demanding a useless war costing trillions and more military spending every year.
50 bob2356   2017 Oct 13, 6:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
He screwed up with everything to do with the:
Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc
Foreign policy, dumping the Shah of Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to rule Iran. Gosh, he even ended up destroying Iran, a country with a future.
What good was Carter for the USA, and for the world?


You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces, Reagan got credit. The Shah of Iran was going down from his own stupidity no matter who was in the white house. If Carter had sent the entire US military, at least what was left of it after vietnam destroyed the military, to Iran it couldn’t have kept the shaw propped up.

Deregulation was carter's legislation. Which set up the huge boom in airline travel, communications, trucking, shipping, and oil exploration that continues today. So next time you fly coast to coast on a super discount $300 ticket thank carter. In 1976 when carter took office it was illegal to charge less than $1442 (inflation adjusted) NY to LA. Think the internet cell phone, and telecommunications revolution would have happened under Ma Bell and the FCC? No way. You don't remember when Bell owned the lines right to the jack (which was hard wired to the phone) and all the hardware, but I do. When the biggest innovation was the lighted princess phone. Oil dropping to $10 a barrel by the mid 90's. The cost of trucking dropping by 50% or more. The cost of ocean transport dropped even more. Next time you buy cheap at walmart thank carter for cheap transportation to get it there.



Oh my look how that growth line trends up more steeply starting in 1980. Growth isn't good for America in your world apparently.

Not even going to get into Carter establishing diplomatic relations with china or peace treaties.

Sorry you didn't know about this stuff, or anything else in history it seems.
51 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 9:37am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
bob2356 says
You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces


Cough cough cough. Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon. And I'm the one who knows nothing about history?
52 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 9:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
bob2356 says


Hey Iwog, this is the best graph to prove the pie keeps increasing. It's not a zero sum game. All thanks to capitalism.
53 iwog   2017 Oct 13, 10:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Hey Iwog, this is the best graph to prove the pie keeps increasing. It's not a zero sum game. All thanks to capitalism.


You don't have to preach capitalism to me. I'm a capitalist.

Since 2000, real GDP per capita growth has averaged about 1% per year.



However median household income has increased 0% per year during the same period and has only in the last 2 years gone from negative to even:



During the same period, the rich have been transferring capital assets from the working classes with both hands. Even though this is a graph of residential real estate, the same is happening with business assets and other land assets:



My conclusions are thus:

1. It's a zero sum game, even considering 1% growth per year. Try and imagine how good you'd feel increasing your net worth by 1% per year?
2. All of that 1% and more are being scooped up by the rich resulting in a decline in wealth for the working classes.
3. This trend cannot continue since wealth in the hands of consumers is what drives the economy, not investment by the aristocracy.
4. Gutting all of the capital assets from the working classes will remove the cushion that in previous times allowed many people to simply wait out a recession.
54 anonymous   2017 Oct 13, 11:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
bob2356 says
You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces


Cough cough cough. Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon. And I'm the one who knows nothing about history?


Nixon polices crashed the economy. It wasn't a time line dufus, it was a list of who did what. I not only voted for Ford, I was a campaign volunteer. I know who Carter replaced.

That's the best reply you can come up with? A misdirection while avoided the issue?
55 anonymous   2017 Oct 13, 11:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says

Hey Iwog, this is the best graph to prove the pie keeps increasing. It's not a zero sum game. All thanks to capitalism.


The increasing percentage of the pie for the ultra wealthy is happening faster than the pie is growing.

When will be be hearing from you about how Carter's deregulation boosted the growth of capitalism? Carter did more to give libertarians a wet dream than reagan and bush x 2 put together.
56 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 11:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Hey Iwog, this is the best graph to prove the pie keeps increasing. It's not a zero sum game. All thanks to capitalism.


Strategist--this is not a controversial topic. The pie is increasing at the rate of productivity growth. Which is about 2%/year on average. Unfortunately, that 2% and more is being transferred from the lower and middle classes to the 1%. So, while it's not a zero sum game, strictly speaking, for all intents and purposes it is.
57 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 12:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
joeyjojojunior says
Strategist says
Hey Iwog, this is the best graph to prove the pie keeps increasing. It's not a zero sum game. All thanks to capitalism.


Strategist--this is not a controversial topic. The pie is increasing at the rate of productivity growth. Which is about 2%/year on average. Unfortunately, that 2% and more is being transferred from the lower and middle classes to the 1%. So, while it's not a zero sum game, strictly speaking, for all intents and purposes it is.


I believe you are right. Real wages are ultimately determined by productivity. The benefits of higher productivity will go to those who contribute to higher productivity. Non skilled workers like burger flippers don't flip burgers any faster than 30 years ago. Strawberry pickers don't pick strawberries any faster. Their productivity is the same. Those with the skills to make and manage machines, robots and computers, along with the venture capital to finance and take the risk, is where the productivity is. Therefore they get all the benefits from higher productivity.
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc.
Moral of the story.....If you don't develop the skill sets to become more productive and get paid more, you will remain poor, and you will have no one to blame but yourself. It's as simple as that.
58 iwog   2017 Oct 13, 12:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Real wages are ultimately determined by productivity.


No one said this and the assertion is provably false. In fact I proved it with two graphs.

Strategist says
The benefits of higher productivity will go to those who contribute to higher productivity.


This is simply a lie, to which I have already posted the proof.

Strategist says
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc.


This is also provably false.

Strategist says
Moral of the story.....If you don't develop the skill sets to become more productive and get paid more, you will remain poor, and you will have no one to blame but yourself. It's as simple as that.


You cannot apply this to large groups. Even if 100% of earth's population has a PhD, you would still need PhDs out in the fields picking strawberries. While it is indeed possible for exceptional individuals to improve their situation, it is not true that the net number of people at the bottom can be reduced. It cannot and the underclass is a permanent feature of capitalism.

All that's left is the argument about how high the underclass should be lifted, or in your case how much you can crush the underclass towards ultimate slavery.
59 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
For anyone to suggest that wages are determined by productivity is laughable. Everything is determined by supply and demand. Period.
60 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 12:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
This is one of those amazingly simple questions that highlights massive hypocrisy and generally drives people like Goran out of the thread and out of the conversation


Looks like you were prophetic. Goran has run away like a little baby...
61 bob2356   2017 Oct 13, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
The benefits of higher productivity will go to those who contribute to higher productivity.


Like ceo's that run the company into the ground and walk away with millions? That the kind of benefits we are talking about?
62 bob2356   2017 Oct 13, 1:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc


Then why do the top few percent get more and more wealthy? When will this trickle down start. Reagan was elected in 1980.
63 mell   2017 Oct 13, 2:06pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
joeyjojojunior says
In fact, if I were Benevolent Dictator, I would substantially raise taxes on myself and my wealthy friends.


Regardless of deeper political, philosophical and ethical questions around this proposal it has certainly never been implemented by either party for a long time. What Obummer did was raising taxes on the middle and upper-middle and upper class while letting the real wealthy people untouched. This is were the problem is. The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well as those of the wealthy because under the Dems they have gotten nothing but assraped. Let me be clear. Raising the taxes on the "wealthy" would be raising taxes on income and other gains on those that make at least one million dollar year per year from their income and other holdings, maybe the bar needs to be set even higher. Anybody making 500K or less working hard is not wealthy, but working for a living. It's that simple. Furthermore you can take from the uber-wealthy as long as you limit the taking until the budget is balanced or debt reduction goals have been met so that this has been revisited and approved every year again. Taxing the upper middle and upper class like Obummer did was just a dick move and thus we have Trump/Republican tax policies now.
64 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 2:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
mell says
What Obummer did was raising taxes on the middle and upper-middle and upper class while letting the real wealthy people untouched.


>$250K isn't middle class.

mell says
The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well


Let me know when Trump proposes such a deal. This one raises their taxes.

But, I disagree anyway.

mell says
Raising the taxes on the "wealthy" would be raising taxes on income and other gains on those that make at least one million dollar year per year from their income and other holdings, maybe the bar needs to be set even higher. Anybody making 500K or less working hard is not wealthy, but working for a living.


Exactly. Let's raise taxes on UNEARNED INCOME. Tax capital, not labor. But you'll NEVER see such a proposal from anyone with an R after their name.
65 mell   2017 Oct 13, 2:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
joeyjojojunior says
>$250K isn't middle class.


In the SF bay area and other high state/municipal tax and high cost of living areas (many coastal areas) it is definitely "just" (upper) middle-class unless you plan on staying single without kids forever.

joeyjojojunior says
mell says
The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well


Let me know when Trump proposes such a deal. This one raises their taxes.


In my case tax brackets stay the same but deductions double. So I will get a little break. Under Obama my taxes (ACA etc.) and my cap gains went up quite a bit. So if you have the choice between a relief vs a raise on your tax burden the choice is easy. Many are in the same boat.


joeyjojojunior says
Exactly. Let's raise taxes on UNEARNED INCOME. Tax capital, not labor. But you'll NEVER see such a proposal from anyone with an R after their name.


Sure but not blindly. We have already high capital gains taxes on many things. Tax cap gains at the effective (median) tax bracket for everybody and remove all exceptions such as the mortgage interest deduction and the 250/500K free gains if you "live" in your house for 2 years or any other crony crap. If you lump income and cap gains together you don't have to differentiate between the two and the convoluted tax law can become much simpler. Just raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy.
66 joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 2:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says
In the SF bay area and other high state/municipal tax and high cost of living areas (many coastal areas) it is definitely "just" (upper) middle-class unless you plan on staying single without kids forever.


And in those coastal, high cost of living areas, Trump's tax plan will lead to higher taxes as well. Getting rid of the state and property tax deduction will be a killer.

mell says
In my case tax brackets stay the same but deductions double. So I will get a little break. Under Obama my taxes (ACA etc.) and my cap gains went up quite a bit. So if you have the choice between a relief vs a raise on your tax burden the choice is easy. Many are in the same boat.


Many are in the same boat as me and will see their taxes go up. While watching billionaires get huge tax breaks. How do you think that is going to play?


mell says
Sure but not blindly. We have already high capital gains taxes on many things. Tax cap gains at the effective (median) tax bracket for everybody and remove all exceptions such as the mortgage interest deduction and the 250/500K free gains if you "live" in your house for 2 years or any other crony crap. If you lump income and cap gains together you don't have to differentiate between the two and the convoluted tax law can become much simpler. Just raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy.


Raising cap gains tax hits the uber wealthy. Cap the MID or keep the AMT in place.

Who cares about simple?? Why should simple be a desire? Let's make it function well and lead to a prosperous economy, lots of jobs, and real income gains for everyone. If it has to be a bit more complicated, so be it.

There is absolutely NO reason why labor should EVER be taxed higher than capital. None. Unearned income is by definition not earned. The US is awash with capital. The government needs to tax it rather than borrow it.
67 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
bob2356 says
Strategist says
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc


Then why do the top few percent get more and more wealthy? When will this trickle down start. Reagan was elected in 1980.


Welfare Queens in America live better than most of the working class on the planet. You don't need more proof about trickle down.
68 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
Strategist says
Moral of the story.....If you don't develop the skill sets to become more productive and get paid more, you will remain poor, and you will have no one to blame but yourself. It's as simple as that.


You cannot apply this to large groups. Even if 100% of earth's population has a PhD, you would still need PhDs out in the fields picking strawberries.

They will just make farm equipment to do the job.

iwog says
While it is indeed possible for exceptional individuals to improve their situation, it is not true that the net number of people at the bottom can be reduced. It cannot and the underclass is a permanent feature of capitalism.

Those who want to make it, will make it. The opportunity for all is always there.
There will always be some people at the bottom. "No matter how much you swirl the water in a pail, some of it will always be in the bottom" Let the bums enjoy welfare. I can't cry for every loser on the planet.
69 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
bob2356 says

Like ceo's that run the company into the ground and walk away with millions? That the kind of benefits we are talking about?


No my dear friend. That benefit is called a tax write off for the share holders.
70 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
joeyjojojunior says

For anyone to suggest that wages are determined by productivity is laughable. Everything is determined by supply and demand. Period.


My dear short sighted friend....Burger flippers are in excess supply, while tech workers are in excess demand. It all boils down to productivity.
71 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
It's very sad I have to explain every single detail to you guys, and you still don't get it.
72 CBOEtrader   2017 Oct 13, 3:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
the underclass is a permanent feature of capitalism


And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.

There is no solution to 15% of the worlds population having less than 85 IQ's. Even the army won't take these people.
73 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 3:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
CBOEtrader says

There is no solution to 15% of the worlds population having less than 85 IQ's. Even the army won't take these people.


Patnet will.
74 iwog   2017 Oct 13, 4:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
CBOEtrader says
And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.


Heard this 100 times. Totally destroyed it 100 times including in this thread. Is your scroll wheel broken? Unable to use arrows? Need help with basic Windows functions? Here it is again:

iwog says
American society has indisputably gone very hard RIGHT economically. Unions have been busted, taxes have fallen for the rich and will continue to fall. Wages have flat-lined since 1980 while profits keep going higher and higher. Trade barriers have been lifted, regulations have been eliminated, and anti-trust laws are a joke since Republican administrations refuse to enforce them. All of our treaties from NAFTA to CAFTA to the TPP are movements towards pure capitalism and all supported by Republicans. Wars have been fought with Republicans screaming their support while they called Democrats "seditionists". There is no more fairness doctrine, no more limitations on banks, no more limitations on media, and WalMart can destroy any town it wants. Right to work states proliferated across the country. Gun laws have almost universally been LOOSENED with open carry becoming the law in many states and Obama himself allowing guns in federal parks for the first time. Reagan made Eisenhower look like a communist. Bush Jr. made Reagan look like a communist and now the new Republicans in charge of congress will make Bush Jr. look like a communist by comparison.


Swaying from capitalism my ass. You simply cannot participate here without lying. Also you are totally incapable of building a case like I just did above with some very specific examples.

You are a troll. You cannot have a conversation. You cannot debate. You have no concept of supporting a point. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is you believe things that have no intrinsic value, meaning you accept them totally and without question but utterly without any explanation of WHY you believe them even in your own mind.
75 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 4:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
CBOEtrader says
And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.


Heard this 100 times. Totally destroyed it 100 times including in this thread. Is your scroll wheel broken? Unable to use arrows? Need help with basic Windows functions? Here it is again:


you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.
76 iwog   2017 Oct 13, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.


Cite something you consider a fact relevant to the discussion. Keep it as simple as possible.

Do you people have any comprehension of the fact that every time you run away from a question you look ridiculous? Try doing it live in a classroom and see how good you feel.
77 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
Strategist says
you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.


Cite something you consider a fact relevant to the discussion. Keep it as simple as possible.


Just compare the standard of living of E Germany vs W Germany. N Korea, and S Korea. China today and China 40 years ago.
78 iwog   2017 Oct 13, 4:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
Just compare the standard of living of E Germany vs W Germany. N Korea, and S Korea. China today and China 40 years ago.


What FACT do you want me to dispute? What FACT do you think I'm denying here? You made a claim and I'm not even asking you to support that claim. All I want to do is see if you can even justify the terms you are using and if you can actually find a FACT we disagree on, then perhaps we can have a debate about it.

Relating to the above point: East Germany doesn't exist. West Germany is more socialist now than 40 years ago. North Korea is a broken example and probably the same now as 40 years ago. South Korea is probably better off now as well as more socialist. China is a slave factory state with one of the lowest standards of living for any working class people in the entire world.

This is a shotgun smattering of irrelevant points. The truth is that the United States has gone economically HARD RIGHT over the last 40 years and that's indisputable. So where's all this prosperity for the people working at WalMart? Do tell!!!
79 bob2356   2017 Oct 13, 4:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Strategist says
bob2356 says
Strategist says
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc


Then why do the top few percent get more and more wealthy? When will this trickle down start. Reagan was elected in 1980.


Welfare Queens in America live better than most of the working class on the planet. You don't need more proof about trickle down.


This is supposed to mean what? You bring irrelevant to an art form. Most of the working class on the planet were a lot worse off compared to the average american worker in 1980. How has losing ground proved trickle down works?
80 Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 6:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
bob2356 says
Welfare Queens in America live better than most of the working class on the planet. You don't need more proof about trickle down.


This is supposed to mean what? You bring irrelevant to an art form. Most of the working class on the planet were a lot worse off compared to the average american worker in 1980. How has losing ground proved trickle down works?


We have not lost ground. The rest of the planet, especially the third world is rapidly catching up to us. More they discover discover capitalism and democracy, the quicker they will progress.

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 109     Next »     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home