(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you took the income of all the wealthy people and divided it up amoung everyone else, you would see no change in the peoples standard of living. To increase standard of living you have to produce more stuff.

Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Real things, cars, houses, food, clean water, etc are what go into making a decent standard of living....not income.

And those things don't rain from the skies; they're the products of an industrial economy. When the corporate owners move production jobs overseas in order to contain costs, they are in essence refusing to invest in America. Yet we cannot get any legislation through Congress to reward companies which keep production here ... because corporations and rich folks have more money to donate to politicians than do poor folk.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Even people with little or no income have seen gains in their standard of living. I'd rather be homeless today than homeless in the 1930s

Of course, no one is arguing that their standard of living is not rising. This is a straw man on your part.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you took the income of all the wealthy people and divided it up amoung everyone else, you would see no change in the peoples standard of living. To increase standard of living you have to produce more stuff.

Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Real things, cars, houses, food, clean water, etc are what go into making a decent standard of living....not income.

And those things don't rain from the skies; they're the products of an industrial economy. When the corporate owners move production jobs overseas in order to contain costs, they are in essence refusing to invest in America. Yet we cannot get any legislation through Congress to reward companies which keep production here ... because corporations and rich folks have more money to donate to politicians than do poor folk.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Even people with little or no income have seen gains in their standard of living. I'd rather be homeless today than homeless in the 1930s

Of course, no one is arguing that their standard of living is not rising. This is a straw man on your part.

Thank you, glad to know I am not the only one who gets it. When someone uses that argument they are not arguing for keeping or improving that standard, they are knowingly or unwittingly undermining that standard.

"It was worse" is the same do nothing argument you get from gun nutters when they point to other societal ills.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you took the income of all the wealthy people and divided it up amoung everyone else, you would see no change in the peoples standard of living. To increase standard of living you have to produce more stuff.

Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

Negative.....you would be giving them more money to buy the exact same amount of goods and services.

If you want to make peoples lives better, you have to give them more stuff. You have to produce more.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Of course, no one is arguing that their standard of living is not rising. This is a straw man on your part.

I am arguing the leftist narrative that the disparity between the rich and poor is widening is a lie when you look at from meaningful metrics. The fact that you agree with me is evidence that my argument is not a straw man but effective one.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm)simplemoss Wrote: The Republicans fought very hard too get rid of the law stating the president must be naturally born in the USA. Schwarzenegger was going too run for president. Republicans thought they had a another dumb half retarded celebrity president like Reagan that would sign off on any policy they wanted, kinda like bush. Once Obama got elected the kkk or "the birthers" as you and fox noise calls them started demanding a birth certificate. So why did the Republicans fight so hard to get the immigrant law changed for their white Christian candidate, but used that same law too impeach a president who was legally born here just so you can inspire fear.in others by portraying Obama as a black foreign mulim Communist spy

The requirement for the president to be a natural born citizen is in the constitution. To get rid of it would require an amendment to the constitution. There was never a serious push by the republicans or anyone else for that matter to amend the constitution on this point.

I don't know where you get your information from....but who ever is feeding it to you is feeding you lies.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 2:27 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If everyone had what they needed no one would be complaining. The same thing happens in other species. If a group of chimps is sharing and there is a balance there is little to no conflict. Humans are no different.

What is it that they need?

In this country the rich, middle class, and poor have what they need.

Now it is a question of what they want.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: I never understood why you people on the left take the effectively racist position that brown people overseas are some how not entitled to "our" manufacturing jobs.

India and China in this context is an issue of boarders and economic model not race. You made that assumption.

We have liberal and conservative naturalized citizens from all over the world in America that vote for both parties here. YOU made it about race I am making it about economic models.

China's economic model is sweat shop controlled by one party. India has a caste system that although politically pluralistic is still class based. Both hurt workers.

I would want for any human no matter where they live to live with dignity.

I said effective racism. I don't really think the left are intentionally racist(but maybe you are) but their policies certainly are racist. I don't see any difference between using government to stop black labor from under bidding the white labor(Davis-Bacon act) and using government to stop foreign labor from under bidding american labor.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I never understand why people on the right project every one of their bad qualities on the left.

People on the left project their bad qualities on the right.

(November 8, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The right has always been an arm of the wealthy and comfortable, giving them the political means they need to exploit the working class, steal what they produce, and kick the poor like puppies in the street. Yet, "class warfare" only begins when someone resists.

You're just another right-wing shitpussy hypocrite living in a very flimsy glass house, in which you broke all the windows decades ago.

Obamacare's pure corporatism should be evidence that the left is just as much of an arm of the wealthy and comfortable as the right.

The bigger and more powerful the government, the more the wealthy and and comfortable have an incentive to control it. All those things you hate won't go away if the right goes away. The only way to get rid of those things you hate is to decentralize power and reduce the power of government.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

Negative.....you would be giving them more money to buy the exact same amount of goods and services.

If you want to make peoples lives better, you have to give them more stuff. You have to produce more.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Of course, no one is arguing that their standard of living is not rising. This is a straw man on your part.

I am arguing the leftist narrative that the disparity between the rich and poor is widening is a lie when you look at from meaningful metrics. The fact that you agree with me is evidence that my argument is not a straw man but effective one.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm)simplemoss Wrote: The Republicans fought very hard too get rid of the law stating the president must be naturally born in the USA. Schwarzenegger was going too run for president. Republicans thought they had a another dumb half retarded celebrity president like Reagan that would sign off on any policy they wanted, kinda like bush. Once Obama got elected the kkk or "the birthers" as you and fox noise calls them started demanding a birth certificate. So why did the Republicans fight so hard to get the immigrant law changed for their white Christian candidate, but used that same law too impeach a president who was legally born here just so you can inspire fear.in others by portraying Obama as a black foreign mulim Communist spy

The requirement for the president to be a natural born citizen is in the constitution. To get rid of it would require an amendment to the constitution. There was never a serious push by the republicans or anyone else for that matter to amend the constitution on this point.

I don't know where you get your information from....but who ever is feeding it to you is feeding you lies.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 2:27 pm)KUSA Wrote: What is it that they need?

In this country the rich, middle class, and poor have what they need.

Now it is a question of what they want.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote: India and China in this context is an issue of boarders and economic model not race. You made that assumption.

We have liberal and conservative naturalized citizens from all over the world in America that vote for both parties here. YOU made it about race I am making it about economic models.

China's economic model is sweat shop controlled by one party. India has a caste system that although politically pluralistic is still class based. Both hurt workers.

I would want for any human no matter where they live to live with dignity.

I said effective racism. I don't really think the left are intentionally racist(but maybe you are) but their policies certainly are racist. I don't see any difference between using government to stop black labor from under bidding the white labor(Davis-Bacon act) and using government to stop foreign labor from under bidding american labor.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I never understand why people on the right project every one of their bad qualities on the left.

People on the left project their bad qualities on the right.

(November 8, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The right has always been an arm of the wealthy and comfortable, giving them the political means they need to exploit the working class, steal what they produce, and kick the poor like puppies in the street. Yet, "class warfare" only begins when someone resists.

You're just another right-wing shitpussy hypocrite living in a very flimsy glass house, in which you broke all the windows decades ago.

Obamacare's pure corporatism should be evidence that the left is just as much of an arm of the wealthy and comfortable as the right.

The bigger and more powerful the government, the more the wealthy and and comfortable have an incentive to control it. All those things you hate won't go away if the right goes away. The only way to get rid of those things you hate is to decentralize power and reduce the power of government.

Which is it, are you for the private sector or against it because "Obamacare" called the "Affordable Care Act" was modeled after Mitt Romney's health care plan.

And the GOP politicians in red states who bitch about it have given it other names to distance themselves from the fact they know it works.

Again, I myself am not against the private sector. I am for regulating it to get costs down and despite what you may argue that is what it is doing. It is getting more people off of medicaid and the higher cost of using the emergency room as primary care.

"States rights" is an old argument that has been used by wealth to create their own monopolies. It is nothing but Orwellian Doublespeak out of 1984.

The deregulation sent in motion by Reagan used that same argument and have been beating it like a dead horse. It is nothing but "If you do not give me what I want, and take what I give you, I will blackmail you by cutting jobs or ship them overseas".

(November 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Which is it, are you for the private sector or against it because "Obamacare" called the "Affordable Care Act" was modeled after Mitt Romney's health care plan.

All you do is spew leftist talking points and don't think critically for yourself.

Obamacare and Romney care(if it is indeed the same thing) are flawed....they are failures. If you want to provide people with health care....then provide health care. Go out an build some hospitals and clinics. Train up an army of doctors and nurses. Provide some fucking health care....don't give the insurance companies a big fat captive market.

The stock prices of health insurance companies have gone thru the roof since Obamacare was passed.....you know why? Cause Obama gave them the gift that keeps on giving.....buy their product year after year or face a stiff tax.

You won't see me defend Romney care....so your cheap weakminded talking point won't work with me.

(November 8, 2014 at 5:09 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Which is it, are you for the private sector or against it because "Obamacare" called the "Affordable Care Act" was modeled after Mitt Romney's health care plan.

All you do is spew leftist talking points and don't think critically for yourself.

Obamacare and Romney care(if it is indeed the same thing) are flawed....they are failures. If you want to provide people with health care....then provide health care. Go out an build some hospitals and clinics. Train up an army of doctors and nurses. Provide some fucking health care....don't give the insurance companies a big fat captive market.

The stock prices of health insurance companies have gone thru the roof since Obamacare was passed.....you know why? Cause Obama gave them the gift that keeps on giving.....buy their product year after year or face a stiff tax.

You won't see me defend Romney care....so your cheap weakminded talking point won't work with me.

Ok bright boy, so now you are saying both parties are in on it? So exactly if both parties are giving into the rich once again, you stupidly want to sell me the idea that less regulation would magically cause corporate America to behave itself? If both are the parties for the rich you think Corporate America would do less of what it already is doing? No, they would do even more of what they are doing.


Talking points? Oh you mean like "less regulation", and "states rights".

So when I point out rich people who side with me you wont listen to them? Which I have already done.

Sorry, you do not get to decide for the rest of society how business is conducted just because you follow one economic view.

You argument still is the same as a theists argument "My social pecking order is superior to yours" Not your absolute right to dictate to the rest of us. Get over yourself.

(November 8, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: I never understood why you people on the left take the effectively racist position that brown people overseas are some how not entitled to "our" manufacturing jobs.

Why do you assume that the objections are based on race? They could well be based on concern over the national industrial base.

You're engaging in rhetoric, attempting to paint in corners where your interlocutors aren't standing.

Discuss with sincerity, or shut the fuck up.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

Negative.....you would be giving them more money to buy the exact same amount of goods and services.

Wait, first you're saying that the standard of living is increasing; but now you're saying that it's the "exact same amount of goods and services."

I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about here. Demand doesn't happen until purchasing power meets new product.

I'm not advocating "giving them more money", either. If you wish to argue otherwise, quote and link the post, or shut the fuck up.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you want to make peoples lives better, you have to give them more stuff. You have to produce more.

No, giving stuff away is a short-term palliative to buy off the lower classes. What you really need to do is allow them to earn the money to buy the thing that, in the end, they (we) will produce.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing the leftist narrative that the disparity between the rich and poor is widening is a lie when you look at from meaningful metrics. The fact that you agree with me is evidence that my argument is not a straw man but effective one.

The fact that the CBO's numbers disagree with you demonstrate your error. The fact that you think I agree with you demonstrates your lack of English comprehension.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Ok bright boy, so now you are saying both parties are in on it? So exactly if both parties are giving into the rich once again, you stupidly want to sell me the idea that less regulation would magically cause corporate America to behave itself? If both are the parties for the rich you think Corporate America would do less of what it already is doing? No, they would do even more of what they are doing.

Yes...both parties are in on it. Corporatism in America is a natural result of having a powerful central government. The more power it has...the more the incentive it is for corporations to try control it. You want to get corporations out of federal politics....return the power back to the states. Decentralize and spread out power. Make it so corporations have to lobby 50 smaller governments instead of one.

Do you know why corporations do not lobby the UN? Because it has no power. World power is spread out.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Talking points? Oh you mean like "less regulation", and "states rights".

Corporations like regulations when those regulations make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Corporations want all the power concentrated into one government.....its easier to manipulate and control 1 government rather than 50. The left plays right into the hands of big corporations. You make it easy for them...because the left is in bed with them. You just don't know it. You're a demozombie whose swallowed the demoroofies slipped into the koolaid you drink.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So when I point out rich people who side with me you wont listen to them? Which I have already done.

I think there is a case to be made that rich people should be taxed more. But I do have a problem with some things rich people say. For instant...Buffet says he has a lower tax rate than his secretary....which really isn't true. It might be nominally lower...but if you look at the situation objectively...and weed thru all the tricks the government plays to hide who's paying for what....Buffet pays a much higher percentage than his secretary.

Now Buffet is a brilliant man and I can't but help think he knows this. I have come to the conclusion he is dumbing down his message for people like you. Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes....I ain't got no problem with that. I'm okay with raising taxes on people like Buffet and Gates. I do got a problem when he claims he pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. Now he is furthering the lie the government is feeding you.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, you do not get to decide for the rest of society how business is conducted just because you follow one economic view.

I never claimed I did. I can say my peace...but at the end of the day...it isn't my decision.....and its not the democunts decision either.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You argument still is the same as a theists argument "My social pecking order is superior to yours" Not your absolute right to dictate to the rest of us. Get over yourself.

This is utter nonsense so I'm not going to bother to respond to it.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Why do you assume that the objections are based on race? They could well be based on concern over the national industrial base.

You're engaging in rhetoric, attempting to paint in corners where your interlocutors aren't standing.

Discuss with sincerity, or shut the fuck up.

Why do you assume Jim Crow laws were based on racism? They could have been enacted based on concern over maintaining the establishment.

Also...I said effective racisim. Davis-Bacon may have had good intentions...that is it was trying to protect the wages of the local population from blacks migrating into the area....but its effects were clearly racist. It screwed with a whole bunch of black people. After Slavery...blacks were climbing the economic ladder just fine. The knew how to work hard. They were creating solid families. Slavery didn't destroy there communities....unjust laws after slavery did.

When you try to protect jobs for Americans at the expense of shutting out of the labor market....say the Nigerians.....you're screwing with the lives of lots of black people....because they arn't YOUR people. Its the exact same thing as racism IMO. Your intentions are irrelevant. What you caused to happen is relevant...and racist.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative.....you would be giving them more money to buy the exact same amount of goods and services.

Wait, first you're saying that the standard of living is increasing; but now you're saying that it's the "exact same amount of goods and services."

Its hard to argue with you because you seem incapable of separating one claim from another. One claim was that the disparity between the rich and poor was widening. By showing that standard of living is increasing faster for poor people than rich people...I showed that claim to be errant.

A second claim was that if income of rich people was re-distributed to everyone else....everyone else would have more buy power. I refuted this second claim by pointing out that all that would happen would be more dollars chasing after the name number of goods and services. If you want to give people more buying power....make the more goods and services which will compete for the dollars they have.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about here. Demand doesn't happen until purchasing power meets new product.

No...you don't know what your talking about. Demand happens for all sorts of reason. A law is passed requiring construction sites be surrounded by fences....demand for fences increases. A hurricaine hits and knocks out the power station for a month...demand for generators increases. I could go on and on.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm not advocating "giving them more money", either. If you wish to argue otherwise, quote and link the post, or shut the fuck up.

My position is get rid of social security, unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, heating assistance, Obama phones, and all the other government programs and safety nets. Then fire all the bureaucrats who administer that huge ragbag of benefits....Then replace it with a universal basic income. What sucks about being poor is not having any money....so just give the poor some fucking money.

I ain't got no problem with giving poor people money. I got a problem with giving poor people money and then telling them how the must spend it(or spend it for them). It bothers me tremendously that people on right and left think poor people are too stupid to manage there lives...so the government needs to manage their lives for them.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you want to make peoples lives better, you have to give them more stuff. You have to produce more.

No, giving stuff away is a short-term palliative to buy off the lower classes. What you really need to do is allow them to earn the money to buy the thing that, in the end, they (we) will produce.

The reason our standards of living have increased is because more is being produced. If you want to maximally increase peoples standard of living...set up a system that maximizes production and maximizes peoples buying power.
No minimum wage.....no silly regulations......a highly progressive tax rate....and a universal basic income will accomplish that.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing the leftist narrative that the disparity between the rich and poor is widening is a lie when you look at from meaningful metrics. The fact that you agree with me is evidence that my argument is not a straw man but effective one.

The fact that the CBO's numbers disagree with you demonstrate your error. The fact that you think I agree with you demonstrates your lack of English comprehension.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

I don't dispute the CBO numbers. I am saying they are irrelevant. The fact that I am arguing one thing and you keep trying to make the argument about something else...something irrelevant shows that you have lost and are now strawmanning to try to save face.

If you want to win...you have to show that standards of living are not increasing....or that standards of living of the poor and middle class are growing slower than the standards of living for the rich. When I argue there is no widening disparity between rich and poor as evidenced by the closing gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor.....you can't win by tossing out irrelevant CBO numbers that have nothing to do with the claim I am making.

How about you attack the claim I am making by presenting facts relevant to the claim I am making. Can you do me the courtesy?

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Ok bright boy, so now you are saying both parties are in on it? So exactly if both parties are giving into the rich once again, you stupidly want to sell me the idea that less regulation would magically cause corporate America to behave itself? If both are the parties for the rich you think Corporate America would do less of what it already is doing? No, they would do even more of what they are doing.

Yes...both parties are in on it. Corporatism in America is a natural result of having a powerful central government. The more power it has...the more the incentive it is for corporations to try control it. You want to get corporations out of federal politics....return the power back to the states. Decentralize and spread out power. Make it so corporations have to lobby 50 smaller governments instead of one.

Do you know why corporations do not lobby the UN? Because it has no power. World power is spread out.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Talking points? Oh you mean like "less regulation", and "states rights".

Corporations like regulations when those regulations make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Corporations want all the power concentrated into one government.....its easier to manipulate and control 1 government rather than 50. The left plays right into the hands of big corporations. You make it easy for them...because the left is in bed with them. You just don't know it. You're a demozombie whose swallowed the demoroofies slipped into the koolaid you drink.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So when I point out rich people who side with me you wont listen to them? Which I have already done.

I think there is a case to be made that rich people should be taxed more. But I do have a problem with some things rich people say. For instant...Buffet says he has a lower tax rate than his secretary....which really isn't true. It might be nominally lower...but if you look at the situation objectively...and weed thru all the tricks the government plays to hide who's paying for what....Buffet pays a much higher percentage than his secretary.

Now Buffet is a brilliant man and I can't but help think he knows this. I have come to the conclusion he is dumbing down his message for people like you. Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes....I ain't got no problem with that. I'm okay with raising taxes on people like Buffet and Gates. I do got a problem when he claims he pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. Now he is furthering the lie the government is feeding you.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, you do not get to decide for the rest of society how business is conducted just because you follow one economic view.

I never claimed I did. I can say my peace...but at the end of the day...it isn't my decision.....and its not the democunts decision either.

(November 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You argument still is the same as a theists argument "My social pecking order is superior to yours" Not your absolute right to dictate to the rest of us. Get over yourself.

This is utter nonsense so I'm not going to bother to respond to it.

---

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Why do you assume that the objections are based on race? They could well be based on concern over the national industrial base.

You're engaging in rhetoric, attempting to paint in corners where your interlocutors aren't standing.

Discuss with sincerity, or shut the fuck up.

Why do you assume Jim Crow laws were based on racism? They could have been enacted based on concern over maintaining the establishment.

Also...I said effective racisim. Davis-Bacon may have had good intentions...that is it was trying to protect the wages of the local population from blacks migrating into the area....but its effects were clearly racist. It screwed with a whole bunch of black people. After Slavery...blacks were climbing the economic ladder just fine. The knew how to work hard. They were creating solid families. Slavery didn't destroy there communities....unjust laws after slavery did.

When you try to protect jobs for Americans at the expense of shutting out of the labor market....say the Nigerians.....you're screwing with the lives of lots of black people....because they arn't YOUR people. Its the exact same thing as racism IMO. Your intentions are irrelevant. What you caused to happen is relevant...and racist.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wait, first you're saying that the standard of living is increasing; but now you're saying that it's the "exact same amount of goods and services."

Its hard to argue with you because you seem incapable of separating one claim from another. One claim was that the disparity between the rich and poor was widening. By showing that standard of living is increasing faster for poor people than rich people...I showed that claim to be errant.

A second claim was that if income of rich people was re-distributed to everyone else....everyone else would have more buy power. I refuted this second claim by pointing out that all that would happen would be more dollars chasing after the name number of goods and services. If you want to give people more buying power....make the more goods and services which will compete for the dollars they have.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about here. Demand doesn't happen until purchasing power meets new product.

No...you don't know what your talking about. Demand happens for all sorts of reason. A law is passed requiring construction sites be surrounded by fences....demand for fences increases. A hurricaine hits and knocks out the power station for a month...demand for generators increases. I could go on and on.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm not advocating "giving them more money", either. If you wish to argue otherwise, quote and link the post, or shut the fuck up.

My position is get rid of social security, unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, heating assistance, Obama phones, and all the other government programs and safety nets. Then fire all the bureaucrats who administer that huge ragbag of benefits....Then replace it with a universal basic income. What sucks about being poor is not having any money....so just give the poor some fucking money.

I ain't got no problem with giving poor people money. I got a problem with giving poor people money and then telling them how the must spend it(or spend it for them). It bothers me tremendously that people on right and left think poor people are too stupid to manage there lives...so the government needs to manage their lives for them.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No, giving stuff away is a short-term palliative to buy off the lower classes. What you really need to do is allow them to earn the money to buy the thing that, in the end, they (we) will produce.

The reason our standards of living have increased is because more is being produced. If you want to maximally increase peoples standard of living...set up a system that maximizes production and maximizes peoples buying power.
No minimum wage.....no silly regulations......a highly progressive tax rate....and a universal basic income will accomplish that.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The fact that the CBO's numbers disagree with you demonstrate your error. The fact that you think I agree with you demonstrates your lack of English comprehension.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

I don't dispute the CBO numbers. I am saying they are irrelevant. The fact that I am arguing one thing and you keep trying to make the argument about something else...something irrelevant shows that you have lost and are now strawmanning to try to save face.

If you want to win...you have to show that standards of living are not increasing....or that standards of living of the poor and middle class are growing slower than the standards of living for the rich. When I argue there is no widening disparity between rich and poor as evidenced by the closing gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor.....you can't win by tossing out irrelevant CBO numbers that have nothing to do with the claim I am making.

How about you attack the claim I am making by presenting facts relevant to the claim I am making. Can you do me the courtesy?

You are the economic version of a theist apologist. Voodo numbers on par of claiming that "6" days are not literal days and "900" years are not literal ages of humans. "Metrics"=Magic

You are just making excuses, just like theist make excuses to cling to the past.

(November 8, 2014 at 9:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You are the economic version of a theist apologist. Voodo numbers on par of claiming that "6" days are not literal days and "900" years are not literal ages of humans. "Metrics"=Magic

You are just making excuses, just like theist make excuses to cling to the past.

Brian37

This is how I imagine you to be: